' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Abdul Waheed, petitioner herein has called in question the judgment and decree dated 26-6-2009 passed by Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu vide which the judgment and decree dated 13-5-2009 passed by Judge Family Court, Bannu was held.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case in hand are that a suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance @ Rs,3,000 per month for plaintiff No,1 w.e.f 5-3-2007 till decision of the suit and maintenance allowance @ Rs,3,000 per month for plaintiff No,2 w.e.f 20-10-2007 and onwards was filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter called as respondent) together with for the recovery of dowry articles, dissolution of marriage and dower of twenty tolas gold ornaments against the defendant (hereafter referred to as petitioner).
3. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement which resulted into the following issues:- -
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) What was the amount of dower fixed between the parties and whether paid?
(3) Whether plaintiff No,1 and plaintiff No,2 are entitled for maintenance as prayed for?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for dowry articles?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for dissolution of marriage?
(6) Whether the defendant is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights?
(7) Relief.
4. The plaintiff produced five witnesses in support of her case while defendants examined three witnesses.
5 . After hearing the arguments, the trial Judge vide her judgment and decree dated 13-5-2009, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff as follows:-- "Plaintiff is hereby granted decree for dower of 20 tolas of gold ornaments, maintenance for minor form his birth to majority @ Rs,1000 per month with 20% annual increase while for plaintiff No,1 @ Rs,2000 per month from her desertion till `Iddat' and delivery expenses of Rs, 10,000 and dissolution of marriage".
6. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in the Appellate Court and after considering the record on file and hearing arguments of both the counsel for the parties, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide his judgment dated 25-6-2009.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent has not proved her case in respect of gold ornaments and maintenance allowance; therefore, both the Courts are wrong in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
8. On the other hand, respondents' counsel contended that the claim of the respondent/plaintiff decreed by both the Courts below have been proved through evidence therefore, the judgment and decrees of both the Courts are correct and based on evidence.
9. We have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on file, in the light of which our findings are as under:--
10. In this case the dower deed is on file as Exh. P.W.1/1 which reveals that twenty tolas of gold ornaments have been fixed as dower. The evidence produced by the plaintiff support the claim of the plaintiff/respondent that the dower has not been paid. This fact has not been rebutted by the defendant. It is also admitted by the attorney of the defendant that out of twenty tolas of gold, ten tolas were supposed to be paid before Nikah while the remaining after Nikah. He has stated nothing about the payment of dower. This amount of gold ornaments has also been confirmed by D.W.3. He has also failed to prove that dower in shape of gold ornaments has been paid to defendant. The ten tolas of ornaments is deffered dower and payable in case of dispute between the parties. Since the dispute has arisen therefore, the deffered dower has also become due. It is on record that ten gold ornaments were given to the plaintiff/respondent but later on snatched by the defendant while the remaining ten tolas are admittedly not paid. Arbitration has also been taken place which are admitted by father of defendant. This deed also proves that twenty tolas gold ornaments are outstanding against the defendant. So in view of this discussion we are of the opinion that dower is to be paid by the defendant / petitioner.
11. As far as the maintenance allowance is concerned, it is also on record that the plaintiff left the house of defendant after remaining in his house for 45 days. It is also on record that the plaintiff left the house of her husband due to their cruel conduct. She was forced to live in her parents' house therefore, in our opinion she was entitled to the maintenance allowance and maintenance allowance of her son. The amount fixed is reasonable keeping in view the inflatipnary trend prevailing in the market.
12. We have no come across any illegality in both the judgments to justify interference in the impugned judgments and decrees; therefore, we dismissed the writ petition being without force, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.