M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Gul Naz petitioner filed suit against Ghulam Mohi-udDin respondent No. 1 alleging therein that she was married :with him on 5.9.2006, who was deaf and dumb. It was also averred in the plaint that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the Nikahnama, which was also thumb marked by father (respondent No. 2) of said Ghulam Mohi-ud- Din. She was entitled to recover dower amount of Rs. 25,000/-, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month dowry articles of Rs. 106530/- as per list appended with the plaint, three tolas gold or in the alternate an amount equivalent to its market rate and 10 marlas residential land given in lieu of dower.
2. The suit was contested by respondents Nos. 1 and, 2 (son and father) and from the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.2007 decreed the suit to the extent of dower amount to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, Maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of institution of suit and also in future at the same rate till the marriage subsists between the parties. The claim of the petitioner for the recovery of dowry articles was decreed to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-. Petitioner claim with regard to gold ornaments as well as 10 malras of residential plot was disallowed. Suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent No. 1 was also dismissed through the same very judgment and decree.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Attack, both the parties filed appeals before the learned District Judge, Attock and the same were entrusted to learned Addl. District Judge, who vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2007 maintained the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court to the extent of dower amount, gold ornaments and 10 marlas plot. The learned Appellate Court modified the decree in respect of maintenance allowance granted to the petitioner and the same was ,enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month and similarly decree of Rs. 40,000/- granted in lieu of dowry articles was modified as per list Ex.DI or in' the alternate its price amounting to Rs. 40.000/-.
4. On the last date of hearing i.e. 8.10.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining instructions from the petitioner made an offer that she will forgo her claim qua gold ornaments and 10 marlas plot provided the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 makes her payment of the amount in lump sum qua dower, maintenance and dowry articles in .Terms of judgment and decree dated 11.12.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Attock and the case was adjourned for today and even the same offer has been reiterated today by learned counsel for the petitioner after seeking necessary instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court.
5. . Suit was instituted on 2.10.2006 and Talaq between the parties became effective on 8.1:2008 and including the period of Iddat of three months, it comes to 18 months and calculating the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, it comes to Rs. 54,000/- and similarly by including dower amount of Rs. 25,000/- and amount of dowry articles of Rs. 40,000/- total comes to Rs. 1,19,000/-, which the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have to pay in pursuance of decree passed against them.
6. Respondent No. 1, who is deaf and dumb, is present in Court alongwith his father, who is respondent No. 2 in this petition, has paid Rs. 1,19,000/- in cash- to the petitioner in the Court and thus petitioner claim/decree qua dower, maintenance and dowry articles stood satisfied. As far as, petitioner claim regarding golden ornaments of three tolas and 10 marlas residential plot, is concerned, the same was not accepted by learned two courts below by giving concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner after appreciating and evaluating the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to pin point any misreading and non-reading of evidence and thus the claim of the petitioner to that extent was rightly rejected by learned two Courts below. Moreover, petitioner in clear terms by making statement in Court has forgone her claim regarding the said items. Resultantly, the present writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Parties have given undertaking not to initiate any kind of litigation in any Court of law regarding the aforesaid five items in any manner whatsoever. .