M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per month for a period of ten months and three months for a period of lddat. She also claimed recovery of dowry of. Rs. 2,27,200/- as detailed in the plaint. The suit was filed on 22.9.2007 and the present petitioner/defendant filed written statement on 16.1.2008 and from the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:--- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles as mentioned in the head note of the plaint or in alternate price of Rs. 2,27,200/? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance allowance from the defendant, if yes, at what rate and from what period? OPD"
2. Both the parties produced their respective evidence, respondent No. 1/plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.P-1. She also produced her father Muhammad lnayat as PW-2 and produced his affidavit Ex.P-2. In rebuttal, Falak Sher special attorney of the petitioner/defendant appeared as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.D-2 besides tendering his special power-of-attorney dated 19.3.2008 as Ex.D-1. The learned Judge Family Court Mandi Baha- ud-Din vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008, decreed the suit for recovery of dowry articles to the extent of Rs. 1,30,000/- and held the respondent No. 1, entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for only Iddat period.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, both the parties filed cross-appeals and the learned Additional District Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2009 maintained the decree of Rs. 1,30,000/- for the dowry articles but enhanced the maintenance for Iddat period from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the -learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the petitioner and the evidence produced by respondent No. 1 was duly refuted by the petitioner while producing his special attorney as DW-1.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have found that the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence in accordance with the principle. Of appreciation. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and both the Courts below concurrently held the respondent No. 1 entitled to a decree of Rs. 1,30,000/- in respect of dowry articles though she claimed Rs. 2,27,200/- in the plaint. The Courts below have rightly excluded the items while reducing the claim of the respondent No. 1. The judgment and decree passed by he learned Judge Family Court has merged into judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is maintained and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.