' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 12-1-2009 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Faisalabad regarding the maintenance and dowry articles.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,2 was solemnized on 3-32006 in lieu of dower in the shape of 5 toals gold ornaments; that out of the wedlock a son was born on 24-12-2006 who is living with respondent No,2; that the behaviour of the petitioner remained pleasant for about two months but afterwards it changed, who deserted respondent No,2 and due to this she filed suit for dissolution of marriage, suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, recovery of dower money, delivery charges and suit for recovery of dowry articles.
3. The above-said suits were contested by the petitioner while submitting his written statement.
Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for recovery of maintenance allowance at what rate and for what period? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of dowry articles or alternative amount of Rs,5,50,000? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to dower amount or in alternative amount? OPP
(4) Relief.
4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and after perusing the same and hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month for Iddit period, the maintenance allowance for minor son at the rate of Rs,4,000 per month with 50% A annual increase till the majority of the minor and dismissed the claim of delivery expenses, suit for recovery of gold ornaments was also decreed upto Rs,1,50,000 and dowry articles upto Rs,1,15,000 vide judgment and decree, dated 23-12-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner filed appeal and vide judgment and decree, dated 12-1-2009 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Faisalabad the same was disposed of as under:-- "In the light of above observation, the appeal is partially accepted. The maintenance allowance of minor is reduced from Rs,4,000 per month. The appeal to the extent of dower money is hereby accepted. The appeal to the extent of recovery of dowry articles is dismissed except the prices of S.No,4 and S.No,7 of the list Exh.P.1. The amount of gold ornaments as decreed by learned Judge Family Court is Rs .1 ,50 ,000 .After reducing Rs,26,473 (price of Sr. Nos.4 and 7), the same is now Rs,1,23,527. It is made clear that findings about the other articles are upheld."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the list of dowry articles produced by the plaintiff/respondent could not be relied upon as it was prepared at the time of filing of the stilt. It is further contended that the petitioner was ready and willing to return the dowry articles but instead thereof the learned Courts below have directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs,88,000. It is also contended that while granting maintenance to respondent No,3 the learned Courts below have not kept in mind the income of the petitioner which was about Rs,8,000/9,000 per month only.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents attached herewith. Respondent No,2 filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles for an amount of Rs,5,50,000, but only an amount of Rs,88,000 has been decreed against the petitioner and the remaining decretal amount of Rs,1,23,527 is the value of 5 tola gold ornaments. Both the courts below have arrived at a conclusion after considering the evidence produced by both the parties during the trial. The findings are based on cogent reasons and are supported by the evidence B on the record, which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dowry articles should be returned to respondent No,2 instead of making payment to her by the petitioner, it is sufficient to hold that the list which was appended by the respondent about the dowry articles was equal to Rs,5,50,000 and only Rs,88,000 have been fixed by the appellate Court through the impugned judgment which is fully justified keeping in view the depreciated price of the articles. At this stage, these articles are also useless for the parents of the respondent but instead the petitioner is already using the same immediately after this marriage with respondent No,2. The petitioner has himself admitted that he is in possession of the furniture. The learned appellate Court has rightly fixed the price of the same as per list provided by the respondent and there is C no ambiguity in the same. As far as maintenance is concerned, respondent No,3 is real son of the petitioner and he is legally and morally bound to maintain him. The claim of the respondent is that the petitioner is doing two jobs and also running a PCO whose earning was more than Rs,35,000 per month. The learned appellate Court has already reduced the maintenance to Rs,3,000 per month and keeping in view the prevailing circumstances, the same does not appear to be harsh order.
6(sic) No ground for interference in the findings of the learned appellate Court is made out. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.