1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.--- For reasons incorporated in C.M.A. No,2217 of 2002 in C.P. No,274 of 2002, we recall our order, dated 27-9-2002 and restore the main petition to its original number and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
2. ' With the assistance of Mr. Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent, We have gone through the order impugned. Petitioner was married to respondent way back in 1995 and out of the wedlock, a male child was born. Unfortunately, relations between the spouses became strained and ultimately they fell apart from each other. Subsequently, respondent filed suits for the recovery of dower amount, maintenance and for the recovery of dowry articles, whereas, the petitioner had instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in a Family Court at Taxila. Vide judgment of the trial Court, dated 20-9-2000; all the suits of the respondent were decreed while that of the petitioner was dismissed. Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge by means of order, dated 19-2-2001, which was called in question through the invocation of writ jurisdiction, but a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Constitution petition in terms of order impugned herein.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month each for his wife and son is too excessive because the total income of the petitioner does not exceed Rs,5,000 per month.
4. ' Be that as it may, it was a discretionary order passed by Family Court after recording the entire evidence and going through the facts and circumstances emerging from the instant case. As regards amount of dower, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same had been waived by respondent herself. There is no cogent evidence except the statement of the petitioner, which of course, cannot be equated with the proof of waiver and similar is the case with the return of dowry articles. Resultantly, no case or interference with the order impugned is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.