' M.A. ZAFAR, J.---Precisely the facts of the case are that respondents No,3 to 6/plaintiffs filed a suit against petitioner/defendant for maintenance of respondents Nos.4 to 6 and dowry of respondent No,3 contending that marriage of petitioner and respondent No,3 was solemnized in 1982 and from the wedlock respondents Nos.4 to 6 are their issues. Petitioner is residing in Sandia Arabia and is working as Technician for the last 7 years and is earning Rs,70,000 per month and he can easily afford to pay the maintenance allowance to respondents Nos.4 to 6, but he has not paid maintenance to them from May, 2005 to February, 2007. Respondent No,4 is studying in Agricultural University and residing in a hostel. Respondent No,5 is student of 3rd year and respondent No,6 is a student of Matric and that now the petitioner has divorced their mother (respondent No,3) in November, 2006.
2. That the suit filed by respondents Nos.3 to 6 was contested by the petitioner contending therein that he had been providing maintenance to them and also providing necessary expenses to his daughters for their education. According to the petitioner respondent No,4 got completed her M.Sc.
And M. Ed. And now she is lecturer in Government College, Chakwal, earlier to this she was employed in Standard Chartered Bank, Rawalpindi. Respondents Nos.4 to 6 are adult and petitioner wanted to contract their marriage but they are not willing. It was also asserted by the petitioner in his written statement that he is earning Rs,1100 Saudi Riyals as medical technician and he has already filed an application for the custody of his daughters in the Court of learned Guardian Judge, Chakwal.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of maintenance allowance, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPF.
(2) Whether the plaintiff No,1 is entitled to recover Rs,10,000 as dower amount from the defendant?
OPP.
(3) Relief.
' Both the parties produced their respective evidence. Mst. Ghulam Zohra respondent No, 3 appears as P. W.2 and rendered documents Exh. P1 to Exh. P5.
4. On the other hand Mehdi Khan father of the petitioner appeared being his special attorney as D.W.1 and he produced documentary evidence Mark-A to Mark-E.
5. After recording the evidence of the parties, learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-2008 decreed the suit fixing maintenance allowance of Misbah Iftikhar respondent No,4 w.e.f, May, 2005 to February, 2007 at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month and her future maintenance allowance w.e.f, March, 2007 till her marriage at the rate of Rs,4,000 per month.
Maintenance allowance of Naila Iftikhar respondent No,5 was fixed at Rs,3,000 w.e.f, May, 2005 till February, 2007 per month and her future maintenance w.e.f, March, 2007 till completion of her M.B.B.S. Programme at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month whereafter till her marriage Rs,4,000 per month. Respondent No,3 (wife) was also held entitled to receive Rs, 10,000 as dower from the present petitioner.
7(sic) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Chakwal and the learned Addl. District Judge, Chakwal.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that salary of the petitioner is 1100 Saudi Riyal which comes to Rs, 19,2,000 Pakistani rupees and thus it is not possible to him to pay Rs,8,000 per month out of the said salary to the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 as she has to maintain his other family members as well. He further submits that respondent No,4 is lecturer and also completed his education and the expenses occurred on her education as provided by the petitioner and now she is earning hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a case of Bibi Inayat Sultan and another v. Sardar Habib Khan and others (PLD 2005 Peshawar 77) to contend that though being father of the daughter is under obligation to maintain his daughter but he is not bound to maintain the daughter who being of advanced age is capable of being maintained out of her own source. She being a lecturer can meet her expense. He further submits that there is nothing on record that why the respondent No,4 has not married so far and no valid reasons had been advanced by her as to why she was not getting married despite being of advanced age and had preferred to live with the mother who had strained relations with her husband.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that admittedly, respondents Nos.4 to 6 are the daughters of the petitioner and they are getting education in different colleges and the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Appellate Court after reduction is not so exorbitant and the petitioner being father of the daughters is under obligation to maintain them till their marriage. Even if it is taken that respondent No,4 is working in same office; the same would not absolve the petitioner to pay maintenance to her to cater her needs. Learned Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view and has not only reduced the quantum of maintenance but has also allowed the same from the institution of the suit. No misreading and non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the compelling circumstances to interfere in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and the decrees passed by the learned Courts below in favour of respondent No,3 relating to dower amount of Rs,10,000 is also maintained. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.