' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Nisar Ahmad son of Ahrr. Bakhsh, petitioner, through the instant writ petition has assailed the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Layyah dated 24-7-2008 in favour of respondent No,3 Mst. Aneela Sehrish, which was upheld by the learned District Judge, Layyah in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 2-12-2008.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that marriage of petitioner Nisar Ahmad was solemnized with respondent No,3 Mst. Anita Sehrish on 2-1-2002; she performed matrimonial obligations while residing with the petitioner; after two months of the marriage petitioner-defendant went to Abu Dahbi and due to the behaviour of her in-laws she was turned out of the house of the petitioner; at the time of contract of marriage it was settled that the petitioner-defendant will give 10 Tolas of gold ornaments and a separate house comprising 4 Marlas and 4 Sarsai, but he did not give gold ornaments nor handed over the house to her. Further the petitioner agreed that he would pay Rs,2000 per month as maintenance in case of dispute between the parties but he did not pay anything. Therefore, on 9-9-2008 respondent No,3 filed three suits, one for recovery of maintenance, the other for dower and the third one for recovery of maintenance. The suits were contested by the petitioner-defendant.
3. After failure of the parties in reconciliation proceedings, the learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following consolidated issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for maintenance allowance @ Rs,2000 per month for the last 14 months and future? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of dowry articles of valuing Rs,218251/-?
As is mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of dower which included 10 Tolas gold ornaments of valuing Rs,2,00,000 and a residential house measuring 4 Marlas and 4 square feet situated at Mohallah Eidgah valuing Rs,2,00,000? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her words and conduct to file these suits? OPD
(5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these suits? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file these suits? OPD
(7) Relief.
4. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties. Respondent No,3/plaintiff appeared as P.W.1 and supported her claim. Khawaja son of Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Hussain father of respondent-plaintiff appeared as P.W.2 and, 3 respectively, and supported her claim. They also produced receipts Mark-1 to Mark-26. On the other hand, petitioner-defendant appeared as D.W.2 and in cross-examination he admitted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, but stated that after withdrawal of the previous suit of the respondent for recovery of dower and dowry articles he had paid Rs,1,50,000 in connection with dowry and dower. The petitioner-defendant also produced Sh.
Yousaf as D.W.2 and Irfan Ahmad as DW-3. They both stated that the petitioner-defendant was ready to pay the price of the house measuring 4 Marlas 4 Sarsai. D.W.2 admitted that father of the petitioner transferred the disputed house without any consideration in favour of the respondent.
D.W.3 supported the statement of D.W.2.
'The learned Judge, Family Court, Layyah, after hearing the parties vide consolidated judgment/decree dated 24-7-2008 decreed the suit of the respondent for recovery of maintenance allowance holding her entitled to recover the said allowance at the rate of Rs,2000 per month with effect from the date of institution of the suit, i,e, February, 2007 till she is legally debarred from recovery of the same; the suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed to the extent of Rs,2,00,000 as value of the said articles. The suit for recovery of dower was decreed in the shape of 10 Tolas gold ornaments or their value Rs,2,00,000 and house measuring 4-Marlas 4 Sarsai situated in Ward No,5, Mohallah Eidgah, Layyah or its value Rs,2,00,000. The petitioner-defendant filed three separate appeals against the said judgment and decree, and the learned District Judge, Layyah, vide judgment/decree dated 2-12-2008 dismissed the appeals upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that both the judgments of the two Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, surmises and conjectures, given in a slip-shod and hasty manner which amount to miscarriage of justice, Further contends that the evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent was shaky and the petitioner-defendant's evidence has illegally been discarded by the two Courts below; and that the findings of both the Courts below on issues Nos.1 to 6 are erroneous and liable to be reversed. Further contends that the petitioner-defendant transferred the property measuring 4 Marla 4 Sarsai in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on behalf of his father on 8-1-2002 through deed Exh.P.1, but in the said deed price of the property Rs,65000 was shown as paid to petitioner's father when in fact nothing was paid to petitioner's father, rather the payment of price to petitioner's father was written on demand of parents of respondent-3/ plaintiff. Further contends that in a compromise between the parties Rs,1,50,000 were also paid as price of land and price of dowry articles to the plaintiff-respondent No,3 on demand of her parents and this was done to bring the plaintiff-respondent No,3 to his home but she remained at his house only for a week and thereafter she without any reason left IC the house of the defendant-petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 fully supported the judgments/decrees of both the Courts below by contending that there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence; that there is no jurisdictional error pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence. He even withheld the best evidence which was coming against him. He did not append the complete copy of the statement of D.W.1/the petitioner with the writ petition. Respondent No,3/plaintiff appeared as P.W.1 and supported her claim. Khawaja son of Imam Bakhsh and Muhammad Hussain father of the respondent-plaintiff appeared as P.W.2 and 3. All the P.Ws. Have supported the claim as mentioned in the suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect or error in the judgment of two Courts below. Therefore, I would not like to disturb the concurrent findings of both the Courts.
9. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.