' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Through the present constitutional petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 4-6-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad dismissing his appeal whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 5-7- 2006 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad decreeing the suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles filed by respondent No, 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles against the petitioner in the Court of learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad. The petitioner/ defendant contested the suit by filing written statement through his general attorney All Bahadar and denied the version of the plaintiff/respondent No,
1. The learned trial Court out of the pleading of the parties framed as many as four issues. In support of her contentions, plaintiff/ respondent No,1 examined two witnesses including herself and produced documentary evidence.
In rebuttal defendant/petitioner examined two witnesses and produced documentary evidence (Mark-A to Mark-I). The learned trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit fixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs,6000 per month and entitling her to recover the dowry articles or in alternate Rs,193,000 from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad by filing an appeal, who vide judgment and decree dated 4-6-2007 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, hence this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for maintenance was decreed by fixing the maintenance of respondent No,1 at the rate of Rs,6000 per months but the respondent is not entitled to the maintenance amount after Iddat period. As far as recovery of dowry articles is concerned, it was decreed to the tune of Rs,1,93,000. He further submits that the petitioner did not avail any of the dowry articles brought by the respondent as he had left for Kuwait soon after the marriage, therefore, most of the time dowry articles remained in the usage of the respondent, as such, the petitioner is not liable to pay anything for the dowry articles.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that there is no denying the facts that the dowry articles were given to the petitioner and they were in common usage of the spouses therefore, the respondent is entitled to receive the dowry articles from the petitioner.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the available record. Since I have heard both the parties at length, therefore, this petition is being decided as a notice case. This Court is not inclined in interfering with the findings of both the Courts below regarding fixation of Rs,6000 per month as maintenance allowance in favour of respondent No,
1. However, as per law, respondent No,1 is not entitled to the maintenance allowance after the Iddat period. Since the Iddat period has elapsed, therefore, she is not entitled to the maintenance after the Iddat.
6. As far as recovery of dowry articles or alternatively payment off Rs,1,93,000 to respondent No,1 is concerned, it has been established from the record i.e, remittance receipts from Kuwait, the petitioner has remitted overall Rs,4,75,000 to respondent No,1 which is much beyond the decretal amount which is B Rs,1,93,000. Keeping in view this fact respondent No,1 is not entitled to the recovery of dowry articles which was decreed to the tune of Rs,1,93,000 but she has received Rs,4,75,000 which is much more the decretal amount. Moreover, the petitioner had left for Kuwait soon after the marriage and did not avail any of the dowry articles which remained in the use of respondent No,1, therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay the decretal amount. Learned appellate Court failed to give definite findings on these two aspects of the case, therefore, it misread the evidence in the form of remittance receipts which are part of the record. I, therefore, partly allow this constitutional petition and set aside the judgment and decrees of both the Courts below to the extent of recovery of dowry C articles or price thereof amounting to Rs,1,93,000 and maintain the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below to the extent of maintenance allowance till the Iddat period. No order as to costs. .