'SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 7-10-2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Khushab whereby he granted maintenance allowance to the minors and Iddat expenses to respondent No,1 at the rate of Rs,500 per month. The suit of respondent No,1 in respect of return of dowry articles was also decreed and in the alternate a sum of Rs,20,300 was directed to be paid.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the maintenance allowed to the respondents is excessive. The petitioner is serving in the Army in lower rank and is not in a position to pay the amount decreed against him.
3. As to the maintenance allowance is concerned, it is too meagre to be commuted. In the present day, one can hardly lead his life in an amount of Rs,500 per month. The same cannot be termed as excessive in any manner.
4. As to dowry articles, Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.1 appeared on behalf of the respondent and stated that she filed the suit of her own but later on due to some mental derangement, she is unable to appear in the Court. He stated that the articles of dowry were given to the respondent through list Exh.P.1. All these articles are in possession of the defendant, P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam corroborated the statement of P.W.1. He stated that dowry articles were given and list of Exh.P.1 was prepared.
These articles were still lying with the petitioner/defendant. Muhammad Anwar appeared as his own witness and produced D.W.1 Khushi Muhammad in his support. He stated that the respondent was even otherwise related to him. They are from same Baradari. There is no custom of giving dowry in their family. D.W.1 further stated that dowry articles were not given to the respondent at the time of her marriage. The learned Court directed return of articles of golden ornaments.
5. Legislature in its wisdom has not provided appeal against a decree where the value of dowry articles and maintenance allowance is less than Rs,30,000 and Rs,1,000 respectively. The petitioner cannot seek relief in the constitutional petition by circumventing the relief not provided by Statue in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence.
6. Interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is thus, declined.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is without force and is dismissed.