ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J. - This order shall dispose of this writ petition as well as the connected writ petition No. 3141/2009 as common question of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions.
2. This Constitutional petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the decree for the recovery of dowry articles, recovery of maintenance allowance for the petitioner and for the minor was reduced while modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 3.5.2008.
3. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner who was married with the respondent and out of this wedlock, one minor was born, instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs. 1,35,050/- for the recovery of maintenance allowance for herself and for the minor and maternity charges on the ground that the respondent without any cause and reason turned of the-petitioner from his . House and the minor is living with the petitioner but the respondent has refused to accept the afore-said claim of the petitioner. The suit was resisted by the respondent by filing the written statement wherein the claim of the petitioner were controverted and it was stated that in fact the respondent paid the price of the dowry articles and those were taken away by the petitioner at the time of leaving the house of respondent.
4. The learned Trial Court for determination, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues, recorded the evidence led by the parties and finally decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner whereby the minor was held entitled to receive the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- per month. The petitioner was allowed to recover maintenance for Iddat period of Rs. 10,000/- and on account of the dowry articles Rs. 1,35,050/- was awarded.
5. The respondent being aggrieved of. The judgment and decree, preferred an appeal wherein the learned Appellate Court reduced the amount of dowry articles Rs. 80,000/- from Rs. 1,35,005/-; maintenance allowance to the minor Rs. 1000/- instead of Rs. 2000/- per month and the maintenance for the Iddat period of the petitioner was reduced to Rs. 4000/- instead of Rs.
10,000/-. Hence this Constitutional petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Appellate Court without any cause and reason and referring anything from the record has modified the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Further contended that the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the record available on the file and passed a fair and well- worded decree and there was no reason to interfere therewith.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent who has also filed an independent Writ Petition No. 3141/2009 has objected the findings recorded by the learned Courts below and submitted that both the learned Courts below seriously erred in law to interpret the record and particularly the evidence led by the parties and the judgment impugned herein are not sustainable in law.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is not denied and also proved from the record and the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that the petitioner was given dowry articles and. Those are still lying with the respondent. Further the minor was born out of the wedlock of the spouses to the suit and is living with the petitioner. The petitioner while filing the plaint, given the detail of dowry articles and also stated that name of the said articles while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1. Although, the .
Petitioner was cross-examined by the respondent but the material part of the examination-in-C.I.F wherein the petitioner has stated the names of the dowry articles alongwith the list has not been cross-examined. Even otherwise, the respondent while filing the written statement and during the course of arguments has admitted the delivery of dowry articles but had disputed the claim as mentioned in the plaint by the petitioner but unfortunately could not place anything on record to rebut the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner through reliable and confidence inspiring, has succeeded to prove her claim to recover the dowry articles and the learned Trial Court after careful perusal and appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, rightly reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to recover the dowry articles or in lieu of Rs., 1,35,050/- but the learned Appellate Court without giving any reasoning or referring any material from the record has reduced the amount, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court being non- speaking one and against the record are unsustainable in law.
10. As regards the maintenance of the minor, the learned Trial Court keeping in view the prices of the commodities now a days and income of the respondent rightly fixed the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- and there was no reason at all available with the learned Appellate Court to reduce the same, therefore, the findings to this effect recorded by the learned Appellate Court are set aside and that of the learned Trial Court are affirmed.
11. Regarding the maintenance of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point of any irregularity committed by the learned Appellate Court, therefore, it is observed that the learned Appellate Court, keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, has rightly fixed the maintenance for Iddat period Rs. 4000/-.
12. Resultantly, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court to this effect are set aside and that of the learned Trial Court are upheld. The writ petition filed by Mst Irshad Bibi is allowed whereas the-writ petition No. 3141/2009 filed by Shabhir Ahmad is dismissed with no order as to costs.