SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J. --- Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for maintenance dowry articles and dower against respondent No. 3. The learned Family Court dismissed the suit to the extent of maintenance allowance, recovery of dower of Rs. 20,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 5 tolas and decreed the suit of the petitioner only to the extent of dowry articles in the sum of Rs.
45,000/-.
2. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 filed their respective appeals against the said judgment. To the extent of maintenance allowance and dowry articles, the judgment of the Family Court was affirmed whereas to the extent of dower, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as dower through impugned judgment dated 5.1.2009.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance, dowry articles in the sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- and dower including 5 tolas of gold ornaments. Counsel for the respondent opposed the said submission and supported the reasoning given in the impugned judgment.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. On the question of maintenance, the petitioner in her own statement (PW-1) has stated that she is not willing to live with respondent No. 3 even if the said respondent were to pay her the maintenance allowance. On the basis of the said statement, the maintenance was disallowed to the petitioner by the subordinate Courts. Maintenance cannot be granted to a woman who is unwilling to live with the husband No illegality has been highlighted regarding this finding in the judgments of the subordinate Courts.
6. Regarding dowry articles, the petitioner has failed to lead evidence which could establish a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- as the value of the dowry articles and has also failed to refer to any illegality in deciding issue No 4. Respondent No. 3 has not challenged the finding of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this matter.
7. As to dower the amount of Rs. 20,000/- is recorded as deferred dower in the nikahnama which can only be paid to the petitioner in case of death of the husband or in case of divorce between the parties. Admittedly, marriage of the petitioner is subsisting and respondent No. 3 is alive.
Admission by respondent No. 3 that he had paid the sum of deferred dower (Rs.. 20,000/-) does not change the nature of the said dower. According to the nikahnama, it is deferred dower, petitioner cannot claim the same at this stage when the marriage is subsisting. To the extent of gold ornaments to the extent of 5 to/as, the same is recorded in the nikahnama as prompt dower which has been paid to the petitioner at the time of nikah. Further, the petitioner in her statement has admitted that the same was given to her at the time of her marriage.
8. The order of the learned Additional District Judge to this extent is, therefore, modified and claim of the petitioner to the extent of dower is, therefore, dismissed.
9. On the whole, the petitioner has failed to highlight any illegality or material irregularity of the subordinate Courts in deciding the questions of maintenance allowance and dowry articles. To the extent of dower in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the judgment of the Family Court is upheld and the finding of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside.
10. With the above findings, this petition is disposed of. .