JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 17-6-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge Lahore who set aside the judgment and decree dated 9-1-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore to the extent of dower amount and decreed the suit of recovery of dower amount of respondent No.2/plaintiff.
2. The cause of action as given in the writ petition is that respondent No.2 tiled a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13-11-2007.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a suit for recovery of dower amount and dowry articles which were decreed to the extent of dowry articles vide judgment and decree dated 15-6-2009. However, the suit of respondent No.2 filed for recovery of dower amount was dismissed. On appeal respondent No.1 remanded the case to the learned Judge Family Court Lahore for deciding it afresh vide judgment and decree dated 14-9-2009.
3. The learned Judge Family Court again decreed the suit of respondent No.2 to the extent of dowry articles and rejected the claim of the dower amount vide judgment and decree dated 9-1-2010.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court Lahore to the extent of dower amount, respondent No.2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore on 17-6-2010. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment and decree is against the law and facts and is liable to be set aside. The learned first appellate court has passed the judgment and decree without applying judicial mind as well as without considering the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel avers that as respondent No.2 obtained the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, therefore, she was obliged to return all the benefits which she had derived from the petitioner but this fact of the matter was ignored by the learned first appellate court. Learned counsel further argues that the learned first appellate court has misinterpreted section 10(4) of the Muslim Family Ordinance, 1964 and prays that the writ petition be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court be maintained.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has fully supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore.
6. I have heard the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record to the extent available on file with their able assistance.
7. Respondent No.2 firstly filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed on the basis of Khula and respondent No.2 as per judgment and decree of learned Judge Family Court returned Rs.10,000 which she had received on account of dower amount. The petitioner received that amount and did not assailed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in a suit for dissolution of marriage till today, which means that the petitioner was satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. It is worthy to note that the petitioner has never claimed or agitated his point of view about the return of agricultural land in suit for dissolution of marriage, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot claim the return of agricultural land which was given to respondent No.2 on account of dower amount at the time of Nikah. At present proceedings in issue pertains to payment of dower amount. The petitioner if lie had any claim, he would have agitated the matter in the suit for dissolution of marriage. Since decree for dissolution of marriage has attained finality, so the decree passed in a suit for dissolution of marriage could not be modified in another family suit for the recovery of dower amount or dowry articles. Decree for dissolution of marriage, in the circumstances had attained finality. Any modification by reverting to another decree could not be made in the said decree and the defendant could not find fault therein to say that amount of dower should not have been directed to be due to the petitioner. The contents of writ petition are misconceived. No interference is called for.
8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this writ petition has no force, which is dismissed. No order as to costs.