PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. --- Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this writ petition are that- respondent NO 1 -- Mst. Shabana Naz ex-were of petitioner Ghulam Akbar filed a suit for articles of dowery and an application for custody of her minor daughter Huzaifa Akbar, whereas another application was filed by Ghulam Akbar seeking custody of Amraiz minor (son). Both these suits were dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court, whereagainst both petitioner and respondent No. 1 preferred separate appeals, which were decided vide the consolidated judgment dated 21.5.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan. His observations are contained in operative para-25 thereof which is reproduced herein:--- "The nutshell of the above discussion is that the appeal titled as "Shabana Naz v.. Ghulam 'Akbar is hereby accepted with, no order as to cost. The impugned judgment/decree dated 10.2.2005 passed by Mian Muhammad Arshad Anjum, learned Judge Family Court/Guardian Judge is hereby set aside to the extent of dismissal of suit for dower -and application for custody of minor Huzaifa Akbar while to the extent of rejection of application for custody of minor Annraiz Ali is hereby confirmed. Consequently suit for dower is hereby dicereed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Similarly, the application for custody minor Huzaifa Akbar is hereby accepted. The appellant/applicant is entitled to the custody of minor Huzaifa. Akbar while the connected appeal titled as "Ghulam Akbar v. Shabana Naz" is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. The record of learned Trial Court be sent back immediately and that of this Court be consigned to record room after its necessary completion."
2. It is inter alia contended that the impugned judgments have been passed arbitrarily and without applying judicious mind; it is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record. Both.
The learned Courts' below have also failed to advert to the colunin'ef Nikahnarna wherein it is categorically written that, amount of Hag,-ul-Mehr was only Rs. 500/- and that entries against column No. 16 are not part of column No. 15 and if at all she was to claim immovable property and other- articles mentioned against column No. -16, Family Court had no jUrisdiction and the legal course for the respondent No., 1 was to have filed a regular civil suit before the learned Court of Competent jurisdiction. He adds that even if the same is admitted to be true still in that eventuality the plaintiff was not entitled to claim Haq-ul-Hehr for the simple reason that she herself was responsible for dissolution of marriage. Adds that the atmosphere of the house of respondent No. 1 being not well for the brought up of minor therefore, custody should have been given to the petitioner While summing up his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence contends that both the judgments and decrees impugned are liable to be Set aside, not being in lines with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and lastly submits that on two copies of Nikahnama one having been placed on record by the petitioner and other by respondent No. 1 same entries in one form have been written against column 15 whereas in other copies same are mentioned against column No. 16 which creates suspicion over these entries and that in the Nikahnama, person who allegedly solemnized marriage, his name is stated to be Fateh Muhammad whereas Nikah Registrar's name is Mushtaq Ahmed.
3. I have heard the arguments made at bar by the .Learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the entire record.
4. The impugned judgments have almost taken care of every submission made at bar, so far as the contentions regarding the entries against different columns are concerned. It is without substance for the simple reason that the same words are written against, in one copy, column No. 15 and find mentioned at the right place and if in one form few words have been written in the upper lines and in the other words find mentioned in the last lines. It cannot be taken to nullify the contents of Nikahnama which always have four Para/Form and each ehtry of every part is to be filled separately. I also find that these are in the same handwriting and by the same person as well and obviously contained the same substance. Secondly in both the copies name of Nikah Khan is written as Fetah Muhammad whereas name of Nikah Registrar is Mushtaq Ahmed. There is nothing wrong with it. Nikah Khan and Nikah Registrar are two persons and under the law it is not an illegality, nor it can be made basis to raise suspicion or doubts about the marriage or "Nikahnama" or contents thereof. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is well-reasoned, no illegality or misreading or non-reading have been pointed out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to page 2 of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2567/2003 to canvass that respondent No. 1, was not residing, with either petitioner or his parents. From this limb of arguments he has tried to make out a point that she was not of good moral character, and the custody of minors should not have been given to her.
5. I am not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel and I have myself gone through the order of this Court passed in afore-referred petition and find that no inference adverse to respondent:No. 1 can be drawn there from. His one of the argument was that immoveable property "and other articles given to were cannot form part of Haq-ul-Hehr and that if were is responsible for dissolution of marriage; in that eventuality she has to return the same. I am also not impressed by this arguments of the learned counsel as well, for the simple "reason that there is nothing on record to suggest that respondent No. 1 brought any suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula and got the marriage dissolved on the sole plea of Khula, therefore, when the petitioner hrnself divorced her, he cannot claim return of the dower amount or any other articles which from part of Haq-ul-Mehr.
6. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, as observed in preceding paras, is well- reasonsed and perfectly in accordance with law on the subject. I, therefore, find no merits in this