' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.--- The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed three suits against the respondent Pir Muhammad Athar; one for dissolution of marriage, second for recovery of dower and the third for recovery of dowry articles while the said respondent filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. All the suits were consolidated and by a consolidated judgment dated 17-11-2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Muzaffargarh, suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of Khula, suit for recovery of dower was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall forego her claimed dower as consideration of Khula, suit for recovery of dowry articles was partially decreed in favour of the petitioner to the extent of dowry articles mentioned in Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.13 but not the value thereof and subject to natural wear and tear and the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the said consolidated judgment, the petitioner filed two appeals, which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh vide judgment, dated 15- 10-2004. Hence this writ petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Haqul Mehr/dower could not be adjusted in consideration of Khula and the petitioner was entitled for the decree of the dower suit for Rs,1,00,000; that the suit for recovery of dowry articles was also to be decreed for the amount of Rs,1,70,655 as the petitioner had attached receipts of the same vide Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.13 and there is no denial or rebuttal on the part of the respondent in his evidence or in his written statement and that the impugned judgments are result of non- reading and misreading of evidence.
3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of respondent No,3 Pir Muhammad Athar that the petitioner forced to sell the shop which was given in Haqul Mehr to her and it was in this connection that the amount was given to the petitioner; that the respondent was Ghar Damad, therefore, the dowry articles were not in his possession and even no dowry articles were given to the petitioner at the time of marriage; that both the Courts below have given full relief to the petitioner and that the petitioner has obtained dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula and that it was agreed that the petitioner shall forego her claim of dowr as consideration for Khula.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments.
5. It is a settled law that where the parties do not mutually agree for separation by way of Khula, the Court can allow same in consideration of the lady giving up her right to recover dower which is unpaid and restoration of other benefits. Reliance is placed upon 1991 MLD 1732.
6. As regards the dowry articles, the Courts below have accepted the said purchase receipts Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.13 subject to natural wear and tear and have reasonably allowed the same after depreciation, therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below in this regard.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in both the judgments of the Courts below. There is no justification for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.
8. In view of the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.