' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioners impugn the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24- 2-2011, whereby Writ Petition No, 9889 of 2010, filed by them, was dismissed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below were maintained.
2. Brief facts to decide the present petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower etc. Against respondent No,1. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the relief to the extent of dower amount claimed by the petitioners along with recovery of articles such as property and vehicle etc; however, granted maintenance allowance to the minor 'children (one son and one daughter) at the rate of Rs,7,000 each per month with 10% annual increase from the date of institution of the suit.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned Family Judge, the petitioners tiled an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, as the first appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22-2-2010. This judgment was called in question before the High Court through tiling constitution petition, which too was dismissed; vide impugned order dated 24-2-2011.
Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Courts below, including the High Court, failed to take in consideration the evidence on record and in support of his contention, he heavily relied upon paras 7, 8, and '9 of the plaint and the written statement filed by respondent No,1.
4. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. From the perusal of record, it appears that in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint, the petitioners alleged that; on 20-9-1997, the respondent in presence of two witnesses namely Rauf Khursheed and Nadeem Irek swore an affidavit that within two months he will provide a house and a car to petitioner No,1, failing which a sum of Rs,250,000 will be paid to her, and in case of failure, the petitioner may have a right to take legal action against him; that he will pay a sum of Rs,10,000 per month as expenses of the minor children; and that at the time of second Nikkah dower amount was fixed as Rupees One Million. The respondent in his written statement while denying the allegations levelled by the petitioner in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint, stated that the marriage was dissolved on 7-8-2003, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. The learned Family Judge after taking into consideration the affidavit, relied upon by the petitioner, came to the conclusion, that she has failed to prove the affidavit and that there was some manipulation in the said document by removing the names of the original witnesses and such tampered. Document cannot be relied upon.
5. As regards the maintenance allowance of Rs,7,000 per month with an annual increase of 10% from the date of the institution of the suit, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, in detail, discussed this aspect of the matter with reference to income of the respondent and his responsibility towards his children from other marriage and maintained the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, including the High Court, to call for interference.
6. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.