M.A. ZAFAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that parties were married on 18.12.2005 and at the time of Rukhsati, dowry articles as claimed by respondent No. 1 was allegedly given to her by her parents. On account of differences, respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance, recovery of dowry articles or in the alternate value of dowry articles i.e. Rs. 4,55,160/-.
2. That from the divergent pleadings of the parties , following issues were framed:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled tb decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds and facts mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff had taken dowry articles according to the list annexed with the plaint into the house of the defendant and they are still in the possession of the defendant and plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of those . Dowry articles or in alternative the value of dowry articles Rs. 4,55,160/-? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to decree for recovery of maintenance allowance, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit? OPD (5). Whether the plaintiff has filed the suit not with clean hand and she is not entitled for any relief and defendant is entitled for special costs? OPD
(6) Relief."
3. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 appeared as PW-1 on her own behalf and on behalf of Jawad Shahbaz her minor son who was plaintiff No. 2 and is respondent No. 2 in the present petition. She tendered in evidence list of dowry articles as Ex.P.1 and also produced Abbas Farid PW-2 as her witness.
4. The present petitioner/defendant did not appear himself but on his behalf his special attorney Ghulam Sarwar appeared as DW-1 and produced special power-of attorney as Ex.D-1 and his own affidavit as Ex.D-2. Petitioner also produced Younas and lrshad A.I Khan as DW-2 and DW-3 as his witnesses and they also tendered their affidavits Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 respectively. The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 held that respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 is entitled for the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 20.5.2006 till 26.5.2008. Regarding respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 it was held that he was born on 02.10.2006, therefore, he is entitled for the maintenance allowance from 02.10.2006 till she attains the age of 18 years at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- with the increase of 10 % after every year from the date of the judgment and maintenance allowance earlier paid by the petitioner as interim maintenance will be deducted from the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the decree. The learned Judge Family Court while deciding issue No. 2 decreed the suit for Rs. 2,95,760/- to the extent of dowry articles.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranawala who vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008, maintained the decree for the recovery of dowry articles as well as decree for maintenance passed in favour of respondent No. 2 but modified the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month for the period of three months of Iddat only.
6. The learned Courts below after, appreciating the evidence available on record rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner being father of respondent No. 2 is bound to maintain her and Ghulam Sarwar DW-1 Special Attorney of the petitioner did not rebut respondent's evidence about the earning of the petitioner (Rs. 50,000/-per month) though in cross-examination he stated that he earned Rs. 25/30 thousand per month. As far as, the recovery of dowry articles are concerned, the learned Courts below did not believe the assertion of petitioner's attorney that no dowry was given on account of admission made by DW-2 that Baraat was received at a marriage hall in WAPDA Town, Gujranwala and the said hall was situated in a posh locality; the learned Appellate Court held that it is not believable that the parents of respondent No. 1 could not afford to deliver the articles of dowry to the petitioner despite the fact that they made arrangement of Baraat at a posh marriage hall with huge expenses. It is customary in our society to give dowry to a girl at the time of marriage and it is not believable that she was not given any dowry by her parents. No mis- reading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. .