' MUHAMMADE NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Through this writ petition Mst. Sharman Bibi petitioner has impugned judgment and decree, dated 30-7-2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mian Channu whereby he partly accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the judgment and decree, dated 10-5-2005 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mian Channu District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit againstrespondent No,1 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles. The learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment and decree, dated 10-5-2004 granted decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of petitioner Mst. Sharman Bibi. She was also declared entitled to recover Rs,500 per month as her maintenance allowance from the date of institution of suit till the completion of her Iddat period along with Rs,10,000 delivery expenses. The learned Judge Family Court further declared the petitioner to recover Rs,20,000 from respondent No,1 as an alternateof her used dowry articles along with admitted dowry articles as admitted in the written statement.
Being aggrieved respondent No,1 preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Mian Channu who videimpugned judgment and decree, dated 30-7-2004 partly accepted the appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge Family Court to the extent of Rs,20,000 as alternate of used dowry articles being not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the impugned judgment and decree is against the law and facts and also contrary to well-established principles of natural justice; that it suffers from jurisdictional defect as the learned Court below has not seen the case in its true perspective and thus committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Further contends that petitioner had proved her case through oral as well as documentary evidence that she had been given dowry articles worth Rs,80,000 at the time of her marriage; that the learned Trial Court rightly decreed Rs,20,000 as alternate for the use of dowry articles after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mian Channu is quite legal and has been passed after discussing the evidence as well as material available on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for tile parties and carefullyperused the record. Petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mian Channu, dated 30-7-2005 whereby he partially accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 to the extent of Rs,20,000 as alternate for the use of dowry articles being not maintainable and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court who vide judgment and decree, dated 10- 5-2004. The petitioner had been declared entitled to get back her dowry articles as admitted in the written statement. It is admitted position that petitioner lived with respondent No,1 as her wife for more than five years and during that period she had been using her dowry articles. It will not be fair to order Abdul Majeed respondent No,1 to pay Rs,20,000 for use of dowry articles along with the dowry articles which he has admitted in his written statement because there is no criteria to determine such amount. Even otherwise there is no evidence on record with regard to use of dowry articles and household articles admitted devalued with the passage of time, therefore, the learned AddL. District Judge had passed a well-reasoned judgment and decree which do not call for any interference. Hence, petition being without any merit hereby dismissed.