PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.---Briefly stated the facts as those emerge out of this constitutional petition are that the respondent Mst. Bushra Parveen filed a consolidated family suit praying for Dissolution of Marriage, recovery of articles of dowry and for recovery of Haqul-Mahr of Rs.2,00,000 and five tolas gold ornaments. The prayer to the extent of Dissolution of marriage on account of khula was allowed and to that extent the suit was decreed, whereas regarding the prayer for recovery of dowry articles was dismissed vide same judgment and decree dated 14-10-2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Kabir Wala. The findings of the learned Judge Family Court as contained in para No.9 on issue No.4 are reproduced hereunder:-- "In view of findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby partially decreed in terms as under:-
(1) Plaintiff's prayer for dissolution of marriage is accepted, however, plaintiff's prayer for recovery of dowery articles and for dower is hereby turned down.
(2) Five tolas of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000 are hereby as consideration of Khula. The plaintiff shall return five tolas gold ornaments to the defendant whereas her claim to the extent of Rs.2,00,000 has become infructuous."
2. That aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, respondent No.2 filed an appeal, which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal Camp at Kabirwala. The operative paras Nos.14, 15 and 16 of the impugned appellate judgment are reproduced hereunder:-- ' Para 14. In view of the above, it is found that the Defendant admitted that no dower was fixed. As per contensions of the defendant that five tolas gold ornaments were given to the plaintiff would be considered as bridal gifts. The entries in respect of dower amount of Rs.2,00,000 and five tolas gold ornaments are not found correct in view of admission of Muhammad Aamir/defendant.
Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all legal and just exceptions W.1 and Hafeez Ullah.
Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all legal and just exceptions W.2 who deposed that no dower was fixed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to return five tolas gold ornaments to the defendant as consideration of Khula.
' Para 15. It is observed that plaintiff filed a suit for Dissolution of Marriage on the basis of Khula and as such her prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000 as dower is not maintainable under the law.
' Para 16. The impugned judgment and decree dated 14-10-2008 is hereby modified as above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
3. It is inter alia contended that the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-3-2009 proceeded to modify the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family 'Court Kabirwala upon erroneous assumption of facts and law; that the impugned appellate judgment and decree is the result of misreading and non-reading. Of evidence on the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to take into consideration this fact of the matter that the list Exh.P.1 was not initially attached with the plaint and it was subsequently prayed; that the receipts attached were of Rs.63,000 whereas the decree was granted to the tune of Rs.70,000.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner at quite some length and have also perused the available record with his able assistance.
5. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court rather on the contrary to my mind, error committed by the learned Judge Family Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 14-10-2008, was rightly rectified by the learned Additional District Judge, which besides being well reasoned and perfectly in accordance with law, calls for no Interference in the constitutional jurisdiction. The petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed in limine.