IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.---This petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge Jaranwala on 31-1-2009. Both parties assailed the aforesaid judgment before the learned Addl. District Judge. The appellate Court vide its order, dated 25-4-2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and while accepting the appeal filed by respondent No,1 enhanced the maintenance allowance granted to respondent No,2 from Rs,1300 per month of Rs,2500 per month. Further the amount in lieu of dowry articles payable to respondent No,1 was increased from Rs,100,000 to Rs,200,000.
2. The petitioner married to respondent No,1 on 20-8-2006. A child (respondent No,2) was born from the marriage. The union did not last long. It ended in divorce after about 1-1/2 years, Respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance for herself and respondent No,2, the minor daughter @ Rs,5000 per month each. In addition claim of Rs,5,78150 was raised by way of value of dowry articles, which respondent No,1 alleged, were lying at the house of the petitioner.
3. The learned trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence. Both the parties appeared as witnesses in addition to producing one witness each to substantiate their respective pleas.
Respondent No,1 alleged that the petitioner was running a hotel at Manawan, Lahore in addition to owning some landed property. He was, therefore, allegedly earning sums in excess of Rs,60,000 per month and was financially strong enough to be able to pay the maintenance allowance for his daughter. Respondent No,1 also attached a list of dowry articles with her plaint. She did not, however, exhibit the same in her evidence. It appears that in her statement, she gave a list of dowry articles, which included household items, electronics, furniture, crockery and some items of jewelry.
4. The defendant/petitioner appeared as a witness in support of his case. He initially took the stance that the respondent No,1 had received some articles of dowry and the same were returned, but later, in his evidence, took a U-turn and stated she had received no dowry at all. D.W.2.
Muhammad Hanif did not depose anything about return of dowry articles.
5. The learned trial Court on the basis of material and evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs,1300 per month for maintenance of respondent No,2 and awarded a decree in the sum of Rs,100,000 towards C price of dowry articles. The appellate Court examined the evidence from a different angle and came to the conclusion that the respondent No,2 was the daughter of the petitioner, who was legally bound to maintain her in such a manner that a growing could survive in the society with dignity and honour. It was held that marriage involves responsibility and once a child was born, the petitioner could not absolve himself from the responsibility to maintain the child. The learned appellate Court found a sum of Rs,1300 per month to be insufficient and enhanced it to Rs,2500 per month. The said amount was to be paid starting 8 months prior to the institution of the suit till marriage of respondent No,2 with annual increase @ 10%.
6. The learned appellate Court also examined in detail the evidence brought on record regarding dowry articles. It noticed that in his statement, the petitioner admitted that some articles of dowry were brought by the respondent No,1 but the same were returned. The learned appellate Court also took notice of the receipts of the gold ornaments, electronics, clothes, furniture and crockery etc. It was observed that although the said receipts had not been produced in the statement of respondent No,1, the same could be considered in determining the question whether dowry articles were given and if given what was their value. The learned appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that the dowry articles had been returned and that the evidence was sketchy and un-reliable. It, therefore, proceeded to reassess the value of dowry articles and enhanced the recoverable value of dowry articles from Rs,100,000 to Rs,200,000.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued that the learned lower Courts have not appreciated the defence raised by the petitioner and have not given due weight to deposition of D.W.1and D.W.2. It has further been submitted that the financial status of the petitioner was not kept in mind by the learned subordinate Courts and the maintenance allowance was decreed without considering the fact that the said amount was beyond the financial resources of the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that in the absence of the list prepared at the time of marriage, the learned lower Courts were not justified in relying solely on the statement of respondent No,1 and/or considering the receipts attached with the plaint in determining the questions about dowry articles and its value.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also examined the record with his assistance. Admittedly, the respondent No,2. Is a child born from the marriage and has an inherent right to be maintained by her father to the best of his ability so that she may be come useful member of the society. She has a right .To grow up in an environment of honour and dignity. The institution of marriage entails acceptance of responsibility, raising children of the marriage in a healthy environment and providing them sufficient financial means to take care of their educational, living, medical and other material needs. This is one of the most basic fundamental elements of fulfilling such responsibility. The fact that the marriage did not survive does not mean that father can turn his back on the children and disclaim any responsibility or contribution towards their lives. There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner has enough means to provide for the maintenance of the minor child. In this day and age of rampant inflation and rising prices a sum of Rs,2500 for a growing child may be just enough to keep her at the subsistence level. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the findings of the learned Appellate Court, which, to my mind are fair, appropriate and within its jurisdictional limits.
9. As far as value of dowry articles is concerned, it is always difficult to determine with any degree of precision what was actually given to the bride at the time of her marriage. It is a happy occasion and preparing a detailed list of what was given to the bride is in most instances not given much importance for fear of being considered as a bad omen. Therefore, when the situation arises requiring proof of what H was actually given, list prepared from the memory, receipts and other related material has to be relied upon. The learned appellate Court acte fairly, justly and in a reasonable manner in this regard. The statement of I respondent No,1 was kept in mind, in addition to drawing the correct conclusions from the receipts which were available on record. It is also noticed, that the evidence of the petitioner replete with contradictions, U-turns and did not inspire confidence. The figure arrived at by the appellate Court and the basis which was used to arrive at the said figure is in my opinion correct and well-founded.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find that the learned lower Courts exercised their jurisdiction validly, lawfully and within the parameters prescribed by law. There, s no merit in the petition, it is accordingly dismissed.