' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- This single judgment shall deal with and decide Writ Petitions Nos.3338 of 2005 and 3741 of 2005 as having arisen out of the common judgments and decrees of the Judge, Family Court, Bahawalnagar, dated 12-4-2005 and that of the Additional District Judge Bahawalnagar, dated 26-8-2005.
2. Mst. Sanwari Bano, respondent No,3 in Writ Petition No,3338 of 2005, was the wife of the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar. Out of the wedlock one Talha, respondent No,4, was born but unfortunately the parties could not harmoniously pull on with their matrimony, which ultimately ended in divorce to respondent No,3. A suit for maintenance of respondents Nos.3 and 4 while the one for recovery of Hak-ul-Mehr on behalf of respondent No,3 was filed against the petitioner. Another suit for recovery of dowry articles was also filed. The suit for maintenance allowance was decreed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bahawalnagar granting maintenance allowance to respondents Nos.3 and 4 at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month each. The past maintenance was also allowed to respondent No,3.
The claim for the dowry articles was decreed by the learned trial Court at Rs,1,00,000 whereas on appeal filed by the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, it was set aside by the learned lower Appellate Court.
Hence, the findings in that behalf have not been challenged by Abdul Jabbar in Writ Petition No,3338 of 2005 and he has only questioned the quantum of maintenance allowance.
4. Through Writ Petition No,3741 of 2005 the respondent No,3 has, however, questioned the validity of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby the appeal of the present petitioner was allowed and the suit of the respondent No,3 was dismissed.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, is that the learned trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court decided the matter without taking into consideration the relevant factors. It has further been argued that the suits for maintenance allowance, for Hak-ul-Mehr and for recovery of dowry articles were jointly decided whereas all the three suits could not be consolidated and ought to have been decided separately. It was also maintained that the respondents had previously filed the suit wherein their claim was different from the one put forth by them in the suit decided through the impugned judgments and decrees.
It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar that the respondent Mst. Sarwari Bani, had failed to perform her matrimonial obligations and as such was not entitled to any maintenance.
6. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that the findings regarding the Hak-ul-Mehar have not been challenged by Abdul Jabbar in Writ Petition 3338 of 2005 and he has only questioned the quantum of maintenance allowance.
7. The quantum of maintenance allowance is no doubt always to be determined by keeping in view the requirements of the claimant in contradistinction with the resources of the respondent (father in this case). I have given due consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for Abdul Jabbar regarding paucity of his resources. Firstly, these resources are not too meager to meet the requirements of maintenance of Rs,1,000 per month. Secondly, keeping in view the cost of living and the requirements of the mother and the child the amount of Rs,1,000 per month per head is less than even the bare minimum requirement in that behalf. Even otherwise this decree of maintenance allowance was not appealable and as such the relief which is not admissible in appeal cannot be considered or granted in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction unless the impugned order is perverse and against admitted facts. On the touchstone of this principle, the claim of the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, is not at all entertainable. The learned lower Courts passed the decree for maintenance allowance on the basis of evidence on record and also keeping in view all the relevant cognate factors. Past maintenance is also a right which cannot be denied by a person responsible for providing maintenance to the dependent wife or child. I, therefore, do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court or that of the learned lower Appellate Court regarding the past and future maintenance allowance allowed by them to the respondent Mst. Sarwar Bano and the minor child Talha.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the learned trial Court disposed of the three suits by single consolidated judgment which was not warranted by law and it ought to have passed separate judgment in each and every case, This argument is not legally valid. The matter in all the three suits was inter-related and, thus, the D commonality of questions of law and fact could validly warrant a single consolidated judgment.
9. As far the suit for recovery of articles of dowry, it may be stated that the claim of the respondent, Mst. Sarwari Bano had been allowed to a lesser extent than her actual claim. Be that as it may, the findings of the learned trial Court were based on the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. In the written statement Abdul Jabbar, petitioner had in an unequivocal manner admitted a number of articles of dowry, which were given to the petitioner Mst. Sarwari Bano at the time of marriage.
The plea that the articles were perishable and also subject to wear and tear as such is not acceptable. There is no doubt certain articles with the passage of time either perish or lose their utility but it depends upon the nature of the articles as to whether they are, or could be, deteriorated to such an extent that their recovery is not possible. In the instant case the articles like furniture and utensils were of course of the nature that they could not perish or be subjected to complete wear and tear during the period for which the marriage subsisted between the parties.
10. It is well-settled principle of law that the parties are bound by their admissions and they cannot be allowed to go back upon in the evidence what they have clearly admitted in the pleadings.
Details and explanations may be admissible in certain circumstances, where the position of facts needs clarification but these are not permissible where the admission is clear and unequivocal. In the case of Messrs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Haji Hashim Haji Ahmad and Brothers 1986 M LD 54 it was observed that admission was question of fact and part of pleadings and the parties were bound by it unless otherwise proved to be unauthorized. The ratio of this case is applicable to the present case as well. In the present case the admission was clear and unambiguous and, hence, could not be ignored. In the wake of clear admission of the defendant- petitioner in the written statement the learned trial Court was justified to grant and assess the value of the articles of dowry at Rs,1,00,000. The learned lower Appellate Court totally ignored the facts on record in this behalf. It did not consider the effect of admission of the petitioner Abdul Jabbar in the written statement. Thus, the findings of the learned trial Court could not be lawfully reversed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is liable to be restored by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court.
11. The result of whole of the above discussion is that:---
(i) Writ Petition No,3338 of 2005 of Abdul Jabbar against the decree for maintenance allowance is without any force which is dismissed with costs; and
(ii) The judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court i,e, The learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 26-8-2005 regarding dowry articles is set aside and that of the learned trial Court i,e, Judge, Family Court, Bahawalnagar is restored. Accordingly Writ Petition No,3741 filed by Mst. Sarwari Bano is allowed with costs.