ORDER SYED AKHLAQ AHMED, J.---Through this constitutional petition Muhammad Usman petitioner/defendant has prayed this court to declare the judgment dated 8-6-2010 and 16-9-2010 passed by the Judge Family Court Gujranwala and the learned Addl. District Judge Gujranwala respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2 Facts giving rise to this petition are that Mst. Sumaira Bibi/respondent No.3/ plaintiff is the were while. Muhammad Usama aged about 10 years, Muhammad Talha aged about 8 years are the minor sons of Muhammad .Usman petitioner/ defendant. On 27-10-2009, they filed suit for recovery of maintenance and of dowry articles as per list attached with the plaint or a sum of Rs.21,74,500 as its price in lieu thereof before the Judge Family Court Gujranwala demanding maintenance a Rs.25,000 per head per month and past maintenance with the same rate i.e.f. 23-9-2009 with 10 % annual increase. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant whereupon three issues were framed. Parties led their evidence and the learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment and decree dated 8-6-2010 allowed maintenance Rs.12,000 per head per month from the date of institution of the suit till majority with 10 % annual increase. Respondent No.3/plaintiff Sumaira Bibi was allowed maintenance Rs.12,000 per month from the date of institution of the suit till the expiry of period of Iddat. She was also held to be entitled to recover dowry articles mentioned in the list Exh.P-6 excluding Articles Nos.1 to 17 pertaining to gold ornaments or a sum of Rs.1,50,000 as its price in lieu thereof.
Feeling aggrieved with this judgment the petitioner/defendant filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Gujranwala vide his judgment dated 16-9-2010 with the modification that the respondents/plaintiffs were held entitled to maintenance allowance Rs.10,000 per head per month instead of Rs.12,000 per head per month. Hence, this writ.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant contends that the amount of maintenance has not been assessed properly by both the courts below in as much, as the petitioner/defendant has no means to pay the decreed maintenance. It is further contended that the evidence produced by the petitioner/defendant regarding maintenance and dowry was as not properly read and appreciated.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant with care and find that both the courts below have not flouted the provisions of relevant law and have considered and decided the question of maintenance in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior courts. Admittedly Muhammad Usama and Muhammad Talha/respondents Nos.4 and 5 are sons of Muhammad Usman petitioner/ defendant while Sumaira Bibi/respondent No.3 was his were who has been divorced by the petitioner/defendant on 8-10-2009. It is also on, the record that due to nonpayment of interim maintenance, the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck of. To prove his financial status, the petitioner/defendant took different versions at different times. In para. No.6 of his written statement, he clearly stated that his income is Rs.30,000/40,000 per month. He had not moved any application for amendment of his written statement regarding his monthly income as described in the written statement. Along with his written statement he had also appended Admission Form of Lawrence College Ghora Gali Murree seeking admission of the minors where in Column No.10 thereof he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs.60,000. In view of above, the petitioner/defendant is precluded from claiming that his income is round about Rs.17,000 per month. According to ex parte evidence, the petitioner/defendant is also owner of many other properties in Gujranwala. Keeping in view the price hike prevailing in the country and the day to day needs of the children, the granted maintenance is not excessive. Admittedly the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage. It was not a run away marriage. This being so, one thing is settled that the patents of the respondent No.3/ plaintiff must have given dowry to their daughter according to their status as per social norms which are deep rooted in the society. In this backdrop, grant of dowry articles to the extent of RS.1,50,000 instead of Rs.21,74,500 cannot be termed as exaggerated in any sense.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has failed to point out any mis-reading or non- reading- of material evidence which might have affected the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below.
5. For all these reasons, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below in exercise of constitutional power of this court is made out. This petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.