ORDER TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This order shall dispose of the instant writ petition and Writ Petition No.430 of 2009 (Muhammad, Farooq v. Additional District Judge, Layyah and 2 others). The petitions, have been filed against consolidated judgment and decree dated 13-11-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah whereby suit for the maintenance filed by the respondent No.3 in the sum of Rs.2000 per month and suit for the recovery of dower were decreed.
Findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to recovery of dowry articles were upheld.
However, petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below were illegal and as such the suits filed by the respondent No.3 merit to be dismissed Whereas petitioner was entitled to the decree for restitution, of conjugal rights.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the nature of dower as given in Nikah Nama (Mark-"A") was prompt as such it has already been paid to the respondent No.3. It is also argued that the Respondent No.3 has failed to prove that the dower was not paid. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were correct and thus the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are erroneous. Regarding maintenance; it is argued that the respondent No.3 is deserter and is refusing to resume her matrimonial obligations. She is not entitled to the decree for maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first appellate Court has erred in law while granting decree for Maintenance. It is further submitted that according to the testimony of witnesses it is amply proved that it is the respondent No.3, who is willfully refusing to live with the -petitioner as such the impugned judgment and decree is against the facts on record -and based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. Regarding dowry articles, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same has not been proved under the law, as no separate list of the same was provided. It is also maintained that the respondent No.3 failed to prove the fact that any dowry articles except one bed and few other articles were given at the time of wedding as the petitioner was, "Ghar Damad" and as such there was no occasion for the' parents of the respondent No.3 to give any dowry articles.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has argued that the petitioner treated the answering respondent with cruelty and forced his were to leave the house in wearing apparels. It is argued that the arguments put forward on behalf of the petitioner are mutually self conflicting in as much as that on the one hand it is argued that the petitioner was "Ghar Damad" and as such no dowry articles were given to the respondent No.3 at the time of marriage as well as that the dower was prompt and has been paid. On the other hand, it is argued that a five marlas house given to the respondent No.3 in dower, being prompt, is still, in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the defence raised by the petitioner is sham and worthy of, no credence.
5. I' have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that a list of dowry articles, equal to the value of Rs.11,45,100 is given in the plaint. The same was reiterated by the respondent No.3 in evidence. She appeared as P.W.1 and testified that she married the petitioner on 2-6-2005, there is no issue from the wedlock, the list of dowry articles was prepared by herself, the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner 'was initially good but changed after a while, the respondent No.3 was being treated with cruelty, she was mentally tortured, he used abusive language, had no respect for the respondent No.3. She was turned out of the house, she kept knocking and waiting at the door, which was locked by the petitioner, her jewelry and other personal belongings were taken away by him. She also maintained that even after having suffered all the agony, she could still resume her matrimonial obligations provided her dowry articles were returned to her, maintenance was provided and she was treated with respect as a were. Her testimony could not be shattered in cross-examination. P.W.2., brother of the petitioner also supported the testimony of the respondent. No.3 in his evidence.
6. On the other hand, the petitioner appeared as D.W-l. Jindwada Bilal as D.W-2 and Muhammad Ramzan as D.W-3. The petitioner admitted in his evidence that a house measuring five marla along with ten tolas golden ornaments were given as dower. The haq mahr was prompt. However, he denied cruelty to the respondent No.3. He also denied that the respondent No.3 was turned out of the house. D.W-2 Supported his testimony. He admitted that the house given in dower was still in possession of the petitioner. D.W.3 stated that after the wedding he transported some household goods to the house of the respondent No.3 which included cots, chairs and other furniture, a fridge and other household articles. The evidence of D.W-3 appears to have been produced to substantiate that the petitioner, being "Ghar Damad" had taken his on household articles to the house of his in-laws.. But the testimony of D.W-3 who happens to be a car driver is deficient in as much as that a car driver could neither be expected to know the reasons for transporting the household articles nor can be expected to have intimate knowledge of the relations between the spouses.
7. The arguments put forward by both the parties and perusal of record reveals that the basic dispute between the spouses is the acceptability of the respondent No.3 in the house of the petitioner. It is amply shown that the respondent No.3 'is an educated woman having a teaching career. On the other hand, the petitioner has a natural inhibition to come out of his frame of mind to treat the 'woman- as a conventional house Wife. Use of abusive language by the petitioner and his other family members is also shown on record. It appears that the respondent 143 apprehends insecurity at the hands of the petitioner. The main thrust of her testimony is that if her dowry articles are returned, if she is provided maintenance and if she is given mutual respect, she is willing to resume her matrimonial life. Her demand is natural. If the petitioner uses abusive language and turns her out, locks the door and eventually she has to go to her parents, then she certainly requires some security. It is also proved that the dower though prompt, has not been given to the were. The house is still in possession of the petitioner. A The were was turned out of the house and it cannot be said that in given circumstances she had a chance to collect her belongings before being turned out. She is educated, a teacher, having status, having respect amongst the community and above all having self respect. She is not asking too much, she is justified:, The impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. No illegality is shown in the impugned judgments. The petitions are dismissed in limine.