'KHALIL AHMED, J.---Marriage between petitioner/defendant and respondent No,3/plaintiff was solemnized on 22-11-1996 according to Muslim rites. Respondent No,3/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dowry articles on 19-9-2002 and also filed suit for maintenance. Both suits were consolidated and contested. Petitioner filed written statement and learned Judge Family Court on pleadings of parties framed issues. Parties produced their' respective evidence. The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree, dated 25-10-2005 decreed suit for ornaments as per Mark-A or their value of Rs,55,000 and also granted maintenance A of Rs,3,000 for the period of Iddat. Petitioner assailed said judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20-2-2006. Hence this petition.
2. Respondent No,3/plaintiff appeared herself as P.W.I, Qasim Shah as P.W.2 and produced documentary evidence, Nikah Nama and list of articles of dowry. On the other hand, petitioner/defendant himself appeared as D.W.1. Petitioner deposed that respondent No, 1 had received all the dowry articles through Qasim Shah P.W.2 and ornaments were taken by her prior to divorce. In cross-examination he denied suggestion that it was written at the time of Nikah that ornaments of both sides would be the ownership of respondent No .3/plaintiff. He also admitted that he had not challenged column 17 of Nikah Nama and that dowry articles were given to Qasim Shah according to Mark-B which bears his signatures.
3. Mark-B produced by the petitioner himself does not find mention that all ornaments have been given. Petitioner has taken plea that ornaments were taken away by respondent No,3/plaintiff prior to divorce but has not produced any proof to the said effect.
4. Learned Judge Family Court, as such, rightly decreed suit of respondent No,3/plaintiff which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in impugned judgments and decrees of both Courts below to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition has no force and is dismissed.