ALl AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- Relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the filing of the captioned writ petition are that on 9.11.1998 petitioner got married respondent No. 3. No issue was born out of the wedlock and in the wake of strained relations; spouses fell apart on 1.12.2004 and all out efforts on the part of the petitioner and that of the elders of the family for reconciliation and reunion of the couple ended in smoke.
2. On 26.4.2006 respondent wife instituted suits against the petitioner seeking dissolution of her marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and return of dowry articles worth Rs. 5,015,500/- purportedly in the custc, the petitioner, who resisted and contested the suits by Mil his written statement on 149.2006 and on the basis of statement of the respondent wife, suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed on 22.2.
20067. However, learned Judge of the Family Court framed three issues and consequently answered issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative decreeing the suit in accordance with the list produced by respondent wife or in the alternative an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- whereas issue No. 2 was decided in her favour holding the wife entitled to collect the maintenance allowance from the petitioner from the date of filing the suit until the completion of iddat period @ Rs. 800/- per mensem vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2007, which was appealed against and the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2008 decided the appeal in terms of the statements of the parties to the effect that respondent wife was entitled to recover the dowry articles reflected in Mark A in addition to quarter to eight tola gold ornaments from the petitioner and thus judgment and decree of the Trial Court was modified to that extent.
3. Grievance being made is that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and thus the conclusion drawn are erroneous causing irreparable loss and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. It is vehemently contended that the course of action adopted by the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court in recording the statement of the petitioner does not reflect the true intention and import of the deposition of the petitioner, who in fact while recording his statement on oath had deposed that gold ornaments approximately weighing 8 tolas were still lying with the respondent wife, which she did not return to the petitioner. Adds that Reader of the Court had obtained petitioner's signatures on the margin of a blank paper, and later statements of the parties were written in their absence. Adds that while modifying the decree of the Trial Court as per contents of the list Mark A, learned Jude of the first Appellate Court erroneously burdened the petitioner to return the amount of gold, which was never the issue before the Trial Court and that none of the parties pleaded the same nor it surfaced before the Trial Court in evidence of either party.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. When questioned as to whether any effort was made by or on behalf of the petitioner to move the said Court to assail the authenticity of the statement made by the petitioner before the first Appellate Court, learned counsel candidly replies in the negative. As regards truthfulness and correctness or otherwise of the statement of the petitioner it could only be inquired into by the said Court and the petitioner may if so advised approach the said Court in that context. As regards impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below, I find no illegality, perversity, ambiguity, irregularity or jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect so as to warrant interference by this Court I the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction with the result that this petition being without any merit stands dismissed accordingly. .