' PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.--- Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this petition are that Mst.
Farmeeda Bibi , petitioner, was married to respondent No.3. However, there was no issue as a result of wedlock. Respondent No.3 contracted second marriage and allegedly expelled the petitioner out of his house in three plain clothes. She, therefore, filed a suit for dissolution of marriage as well as recovery of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.1,50,000 in the Court of learned Family Judge, Karor, District Layyah who decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage whereas the suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed to the extent of Rs.50,000 only where-against she preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge praying that it should be enhanced to 'Rs.1,50,000 by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. Likewise, an appeal was also filed by respondent No.3 before the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.3, however, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by enhancing the decretal amount from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000 only, where-against both the parties preferred separate constitutional petitions before this Court.
2. Writ Petition No.1785 of 2009 filed by respondent No.3 Muhammad Aslam was dismissed vide order dated 14-4-2009 for noncompliance of order dated 13-3-2009 passed by this Court, as well as on merits in limine, with costs throughout.
3. This petition was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 11-3-2009.
3A. It is, inter alia contended that both the learned. Courts below after having arrived at a conclusion that petitioner/plaintiff discharged her onus of proving the issues concerning her, were left with no lawful justification to decree the suit for a lesser amount; that no grounds whatsoever have been given by both the learned Courts below for not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,50,000; that respondent No.3, in fact, ruined the entire life of the petitioner which was initially made miserable by mal-treating her and thereafter by contracting second marriage he multiplied the miseries/agonies of the petitioners who is a woman; that amount in question by no means could be considered as an adequate compensation for the miseries suffered by her and that till date, espondent has not paid even a single penny to the petitioner as maintenance allowance which was his legal obligation, thus prays that not only the amount may be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000 only, rather, she may be allowed special costs as she is pursuing her remedy for the last number of years.
4. Conversely, the only ground being urged is that respondent is a poor man and not in a position to make the payment of any maintenance allowance.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. There are concurrent findings of facts and law arrived at by the learned Courts below. Initially, the learned Family Judge decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff which stood upheld by the learned appellate Court. However, the suit was not decreed as prayed for without any plausib;e reasons and lawful justification. The minute examination of record leaves no doubts in my mind that petitioner has successfully proved her case, therefore, by all means she was entitled to the grant of decree as prayed for. Needless to add that she has suffered hardships, miseries by the acts of respondent No.3 and for the last number of years has been facing the agony of protracted litigation. Till date even not a single penny has been paid to her. It appears that sole purpose of respondent No.3 is to add to the miseries of the petitioner.
7. For what has been discussed above, I allow this petition. Resultantly, the decretal amount is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000 as prayed. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case she is also allowed costs throughout.
8. With these observations, this petition is accepted.