' SALIM KHAN, J.---A suit was instituted by Zahoor Deen petitioner against Mst. Safina Bibi, daughter of Akbar (wife of the petitioner) for restitution of conjugal rights. Mst. Safina Bibi instituted suit for herself, for her son (Sohail Khan) and her daughter (Maya Bibi) for recovery of Rs,1,00,000 as dower, for recovery of Rs,15000 as past maintenance, for possession of a house, for recovery of Rs,15000 as past maintenance of petitioner No,2, for recovery of Rs,12,000 as past maintenance for respondent No,3. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Suit of the petitioner was decreed subject to conditions mentioned in the judgment, dated 15-4-2006 of the learned Judge Family Court for Suit Nos.19/FC and 58/FC of 2005. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur, vide his judgment, dated 31-10-2006, dismissed the suit of the petitioner for conjugal rights while granted decree for past maintenance as Rs,42,000, for future maintenance at the rates already decided with 10% annual increase, preliminary decree of possession of 1/3rd of dowered house with cash amount of Rs,10,000. It aggrieved the present petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the parties argued the case in detail. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that suit for conjugal rights of the petitioner has been dismissed and decree for future maintenance allowance has also been granted in favor of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that neither the dowered house and cash amount nor the past maintenance has been paid to the respondents nor possession of 1/3rd of the dowered house has been given to them.
3. As the wedlock between the petitioner and respondent No,1 still subsists, it is necessary to grant decree for conjugal rights in favor of the petitioner, though it may be subjected to certain conditions. The dowered house and the cash amount of Rs,10,000 are the basic right of respondent No,1 to have to be given to her as decreed. The petitioner is A bound by the decree granted in favor of the respondent No,l. The learned Appellate Court has come to the conclusion regarding the question of fact that past maintenance should have been granted to the respondent No,1 when it was proved that the respondent No,1 was forcibly ousted from the house of the petitioner. The learned AppellateCourt had jurisdiction for coming to that conclusion. There was evidence for forming that opinion and the law permits the learned Appellate Court to form such an opinion. The opinion and conclusion of the learned Appellate Court, in this case, cannot be interfered with through writ petition. As for the future maintenance allowance of the respondent No,1, the petitioner shall have to offer a suitable accommodation to respondent No,1 through the executing Court with a promise that he will maintain respondent No,1 and her children properly.
4. In the light of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction of the petitioner to deposit Rs,42,000 as the amount of past maintenance with further amount of Rs,10,000 as the part of the dower and deliver the possession of 1/3rd of the suit house to the respondent No,1 as the remaining part of the dower. Respondent No,1 shall be a liberty to withdraw the said amounts from the Court and take possession of the said property. The decree for conjugal rights in favor of the petition is a legal necessity and is declared as so granted but subject to the conditions as aforesaid. The petitioner shall offer the suitable premises for residence, and the proper maintenance to respondent No,1, and the respondent No,1 shall not remain entitled to future maintenance if she refuses to accept the said offer unreasonably. This writ petition shall stand dismissed if the petitioner does not perform his part of the obligation. We dispose of the wit petition accordingly.