M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of dower amount of Rs. 50,000/- recovery of 3 tolas golden ornaments valuing Rs. 57,000/- recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs. 38905/- maintenance from March 2003 to October 2007 at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month amounting to Rs. 120000/, maintenance for iddat period amounting Rs.
6000/- and recovery of 2 1/2 gold ornaments valuing Rs. 47500/- alleging that she was married with the respondent/defendant on 12.04.2002.
2. As per case of respondent No. 1/plaintiff after the marriage the petitioner/defendant started her maltreating her and used to blame her and often he deserted her but for the honour and sake and intervention of her brothers and parents she again and again joined him. That during her desertion she became seriously ill and remained admitted in the hospital but the defendant never visited her and ultimately on 7.11.2007 divorced her without any reason.
3. That the petitioner/defendant contested the suit and the learned Trial Court from the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:---
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dower amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant?
OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover gold ornaments weighing a tolas or in the alternative price of Rs. 57,000/- entered in column No. 17 of the Nikahnama? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles according to the list annexed with the plaint or alternative price of Rs. 38905/- from the defendant? OPP
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance allowance from the defendant, if so, for what period and at what rate? OPP.
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover golden ring weighing 2 tolas in the shape of golden ring and two bangles or alternative price of Rs. 47500/- from the defendant? OPP
(vi) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(vii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(ix) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(x) Relief.
4. After framing the issues the evidence of the parties was invited. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi appeared as PW-1 and she tendered in evidence list of dowry articles Ex.P1, copy of Nikahnama Ex.P2 and closed her evidence. Petitioner appeared as DW-1 and tendered in evidence stamp paper Ex.D1, list Ex.D2, copy of the written statement Ex.D3, copy of the statement of Nazar Muhammad D4 and order dated 9.03.2004 'Ex.D5, receipts mark A and mark B and closed his evidence.
5. Learned Judge Family Court after due appreciation of evidence decreed the suit of the defendant No. 1/plaintiff for the recovery of dower amount of Rs. 50,000/-, golden articles valuing Rs. 57,000/- dowry articles according to list PI or alternative price of Rs. 30,000/- and maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- for the period of iddat whereas the suit for the recovery of the past maintenance and jewellery weighing 21/2 tolas was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Attock petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Attock vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payment of Rs. 50,000/- as dower is established from the admission made by respondent No. 1/plaintiffs father who appeared from the side of the petitioner as DW2 in another suit and stated that Haq Mehr was paid in his presence and he being a poor man has not given any dowry to her daughter.
8. Learned Courts below have concurrently held that though it is pleaded in defence that the said amount of dowry has been paid by the petitioner to his wife yet there is convincing and confidence inspiring evidence to establish the said payment by the petitioner to his wife except the statement of the father lady-wife made by him as DW in a previous suit of identical nature filed by Mst.
Kalsoom Bibi against the present petitioner. The fixation of the dowry as Rs. 50,000/- is proved from the entry made in the Nikahnama Ex.P2 in column No. 13 and the suit in which Nazar Muhammad Bhatti father of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff made statement as DW2 on 27.02.2007 and the said statement has been tendered in evidence Ex.D4. The said suit culminated into a compromise between the parties on 9.03.2004 and the respondent No. 1 started living in the house of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff appeared as PW1 in the present case but no suggestion was put to her during cross-examination that in previous round of litigation her father had admitted about the receipt of the dower amount and only suggestion given to her is that her father appeared as a witness, in a previous suit and thus the said statement made by the father of the respondent in a previous suit cannot be illegally used against the present respondent in order to deprive her from the dower amount. Both the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record. No misreading or non-reading of any material evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which may impair the legality of the finding given by the learned Courts below and thus there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. .