' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---By this single order, I intend to dispose of W.P. No,12087 of 2005 "Amjad Ali v. Mst. Aysha Norina, etc." and W.P. No,12088 of 2005 "Amjad Ali v. Mst. Aysha Norina, etc." as common question of law and facts is involved in both these matters.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition are that; respondents Nos.1 and 2 viz. Mst. Aysha Norina and Mst. Hafsa (minor daughter) filed a suit for maintenance against the petitioner, which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore vide his judgment dated 29-6-2004, observing that respondent No,1/plaintiff No,1 is entitled for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month, from the date of institution of the suit till her Iddat period, while plaintiff No,2 is entitled for her maintenance allowance at the same rate within 10% annual increase from the petitioner till her marriage. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 30-4-2005.
3. Respondent No,1 Mst. Aysha Norina also filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner, which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore vide his judgment dated 29-1-2004, observing that respondent No,1/plaintiff is entitled to recover alternative value of dowry articles of Rs,2,00,000 from the petitioner.
' Respondent No,1, being disgruntled, filed an appeal against the above said judgment and decree, which also met the same fate.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court as well as that of learned lower Appellate Court are against law and facts. The maintenance fixed by both the Courts below is on higher side as compared to the income of the petitioner. The impugned judgments and decrees have been passed on the basis of personal conjectures and surmises, which resulted into a grave miscarriage of justice. Further contends that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has opposed this writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is crystal clear that the learned Judge Family Court has rightly fixed the maintenance of respondents Nos.1 and 2 (wife and minor daughter). However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that keeping in view the income/earning of the petitioner, maintenance so fixed by the Courts below is on higher side as the petitioner is maintaining his old aged parents and other family members and is unable to pay Rs,2,000 to respondent No,
1. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner is ready to pay the maintenance of respondent No,2 minor daughter, so fixed by the learned Judge Family Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Keeping in view the generosity shown by the petitioner, the maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 of respondent No,1, so fixed by the learned Judge Family Court, is hereby reduced to Rs,500 per month to be paid to respondent No,1, from the date of institution of the suit till her Iddat period, whereas, maintenance of respondent No,2 minor daughter is maintained. Disposed of with the above modification, made above.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Judge Family Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court in decree the suit for dowry articles. The learned Courts below relying on cogent and trustworthy evidence, adduced by the parties, decided the same, which is convincing and well-reasoned, which does not call for in constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, W.P.
No,12087 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed.