Imran Moazzam petitioner has challenged the judgments/decrees dated 27.02.2006 and 05.03.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Pakpattan Sharif and the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif respectively. Initially Respondents No, 3 and 4 have filed suits for their maintenance and dower amount for Respondent No, 3 stating therein that the marriage between Respondent No, 3 and the petitioner was, solemnized on 28.12.1997. The couple was blessed with a female baby who is Respondent No, 4 herein. After the passage of time the behaviour of the petitioner became cruel enough that he ruthlessly deserted Respondent No, 3 out of his house and created such strained circumstances that Respondent No, 3 was constrained to settle with her parents even in a condition of pregnancy. She gave birth Maliha Imran Respondent No, 4 at the house of her parents and all the expenses of delivery which were estimated as Rs, 30,000/- were borne by Respondent No, 3, herself. An important feature of this, case is that in the first round of litigation the petitioner himself gave consenting statement before the learned Judge Family Court that he will repent his attitude and will not cause mental or physical torture to Respondent No, 3 and will also provide maintenance to them but afterward the petitioner resiled from his commitment and once again deserted Respondent No, 3 out of home. Through a separate suit Respondent No, 3 also claimed her dower which at the time of Nikah was fixed as 25-Acre land.
So for as the suit for' maintenance is concerned it was alleged that Rs, 15,000/- as. maintenance per month for Respondent No, 4 be granted and through the same plaint the maintenance for Respondent No, 3 till Iddat period was also claimed. The suits were duly contested by the petitioner on the ground that previously the respondent had also filed suits in the same line which were dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2000 and 19.05.2001 due to non-production of proof, therefore, the rule of res judicata applied and the respondent could not sue the petitioner against the same cause of action. The petitioner denied all the allegations leveled in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit. The petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Judge Family Court, Pakpattan Sharif. The learned Judge Family Court consolidated all the suits and vide his judgment/decree dated 27.02.2006 decreed the suit for maintenance to the extent of Respondent No, 4 and fixed maintenance as Rs, 8000/- per month. The suit for maintenance to the extent of Respondent No, 3 and suit for recovery of dower was, however, dismissed. So far as the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner is concerned the same was also dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court, Pakpattan Sharif through the same consolidated judgment. Both the parties preferred appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif who vide his consolidated judgment and decree dated 05.03.2007 accepted the appeal of Respondent No, 4 and enhanced maintenance from Rs, 8000/- to 10,000/-. The learned appellate Court also accepted the appeal of. Respondent No, 3 to the extent of dower amount and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Nikah Registrar had made a categorical statement in the Court that at the time of performing Nikah there was no mention of dower but even then the learned appellate Court accepted the appeal of Respondent No, 3 to this effect. He continues to state that the yardstick kept in mind by the learned appellate Court while increasing the maintenance from Rs, 8000/- to Rs, 10,000/- in favour of Respondent No, 4 is not understandable especially in presence of the evidence available on the record of this file. The learned counsel further asserts that the learned appellate Court has miserably failed to give findings on Issue No,
3. He lastly asserts that the judgment passed by the learned appellant Court is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been passed in erroneous way by brushing aside the assessment of the learned Judge Family Court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondents No, 3 and 4 submits that sufficient means of income of the petitioner had been proved through documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the witnesses of Respondents No, 3 and 4, therefore, the maintenance fixed by the learned appellate Court needs to be enhanced upto Rs, 15,000/, per month. He further maintains that it is not necessary that every issue should be dealt with separately.
4.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have observed that so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding misreading of evidence is concerned that is not matched with the record. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the entire evidence and found that Nikah Registrar Abul Hasan Lal who appeared as DW2 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that from Column No, 1 to last column of the Nikah Nama all the entries were made by him and he also admitted it correct in his evidence that the entry in Columns No, 13 and 14 were made by him which shows that 25- acres property valuing Rs, 50,00,000/- was given as dower. Similarly the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments also do not find support from the evidence. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no finding was given on Issue No, 3 by the learned appellate Court is concerned, it is not necessary for the learned appellate Court to discuss each and every issue. Even otherwise the petitioner has been taking different pleas during his pleadings which also shows mala fide on his part.
5. As far as the question of maintenance of Respondent No, 4 is concerned the leaned trial Court fixed Rs, 8000/- per month and the learned appellate Court enhanced it upto Rs, 10,000/-. Under the instructions of his client the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no objection if the amount enhanced by the learned appellate Court is reduced to that which was fixed by the learned Judge Family Court and that is Rs, 8000/-. In the light of above said submission and the evidence which has been properly discussed by both the Courts below I feel that the maintenance Rs, 8000/- fixed by the learned trial Court was reasonable and the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2008 passed by the learned appellate Court to the extent of enhancement of maintenance is set aside and the maintenance of Respondent No, 4 is fixed Rs, 8000/- per month according to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
6. So far as decree by the learned appellate Court in favour of Respondent No, 3 for dower is concerned, the same was passed after thoroughly discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence. The upshot of my above discussion is that no illegality or irregularity has been found in the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court and this writ, petition is dismissed in these terms.