AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this writ petition the petitioner who was defendant in a composite suit filed by respondent No. 3 before the Judge Family Court for recovery of dower as well as maintenance allowance has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court on 20.10.2010 and that of first Appellate Court dated 11.12.2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed composite suit for recovery of dower amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- and a portion of residential house mentioned in the head note of the plaint as well as Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance, one month prior to the filing of the suit and onward with the same rate. The suit was filed on 19.9.2009. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed. The parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 decreed the suit to the extent of portion of the house and Rs. 3,00,000/- as dower amount observing that remaining Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid at the time of marriage in the shape of ornaments and further decree for maintenance allowance was granted at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. An appeal was filed by the petitioner-defendant and the same was dismissed, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he only challenges a portion of the decree granted by the Judge Family Court with regard to the dower to the extent Rs. 3,00,000/- and the decree for grant of maintenance allowance is without any evidence.
4. He states that it is admitted by the plaintiff respondent that necklace owned by the petitioner defendant is in her possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the value of that necklace is more than Rs. 1,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner offers that if respondent No. 3 returns the same, petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Court and Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been deposited with this Court out of Rs. 3,00,000/-the dower amount decreed by the Trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that respondent is not ready to accept the offer and states that there was sufficient material available before the Judge Family Court to grant decree for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs, 10,000/- as defendant- petitioner is man of means.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record with their able assistance.
7. The case of the petitioner is that necklace belonging to the petitioner is with the respondent, as the learned counsel has referred some portion of statement of the plaintiff-respondent No. 3. If it is admitted, even then it does not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay the dower as decreed by the Courts below. If there is any right of the petitioner with regard to that necklace, he may avail his remedy before the proper forum. On the basis of that necklace decree granted by the Judge Family Court cannot be set aside. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below on the issue of dower.
8. So far as decree for maintenance allowance is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner referred application filed on 10.5.2010 by the respondent for recording her statement with regard to the maintenanc allowance and the same was dismissed by the Judge Famil Court on the same day. Learned counsel states that as threspondent-plaintiff admitted that she has not mad statement before the Judge Family Court with regard to the maintenance allowance, therefore the decree granted by th learned Trial Court is not sustainable under the'law. Learne counsel for the petitioner relying upon Muhammad Bashi and others v. Lftikhar A.I and others (PLD 2004 SC 465) an Overseas Pakistani's Foundation and others v. Sqn. Ldr. (Retd) Syed Mukhtar A.I Shah and another (2007 SCM R 569) states that the pleadings cannot be treated a evidence.
9. The case-law referred by the learned counsel for the peitioner relates to there it litigation, therefore, there is no cavil to the rule that pleading cannot be treated as evidence'btIthe matter in hand relates to the family dispute. I haveiseerr that- a decree for dower has been granted in favour of respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and the major portion of decree of dower has been admitted by the petitioner, meaning thereby that it has been admitted that dower was not paid after it was demanded by respondent No. 3. I am clear in my mind that a lady to whom the dower has not been paid after the demand, can live separate from her htsband, only on the basis of non- payment of the dower. Even it has been pleaded in the plaint and statement of respondent No. 3 is also available en the record with regard to the cruel behaviour of the petitioner and his family. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner himself has not denied that he is lecturer of English and is drawing attractive salary and further he has also admitted that he has not paid any maintenance allowance to her after filing of the suit, and dower amount fixed in the Nikah Name also speaks about the status of the parties, further that the learned counsel for the petitioner states that portion of residential house transferred in favour of respondent No. 3 as part of dower in worth one crore rupees. Therefore, I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. The petitioner is bound under the law to show any jurisdictional defect, illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which he failed to do so. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.