' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- The suit filed by the present petitioner before learned Judge Family Court, Sangla Hill, was decided on 22-4-2010 in the manner that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No,1 was ordered to be dissolved in lieu of dower amount. Dowry was granted according to the list Exh.D-1 and a maintenance of Rs,1,415 per month since the date of Nikah i,e, 8- 4-2006 till completion of Iddat. Both the sides preferred appeals and the learned Appellate Court modified the decree for recovery of dowry by addition of a washing machine in the articles mentioned in Exh.-D-1, whereas, portion of the decree granting maintenance to the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner herein insisted upon the decree of dowry according to her own claim and also to restore the grant of maintenance in view of the decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court. The petition has been contested by respondent No,1.
2. With regard to, dowry articles, the petitioner has failed to place on record any list of articles, which according to her claim, were given to her at the time of marriage in shape of dowry. Some receipts, which although were exhibited in the process of evidence, have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her claim but all such receipts are private documents and with regard to none any competent witness in order to prove the same was produced in the witness box, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such receipts. The list Exh.D-1 has been produced by the defendant in the suit with an admission that articles mentioned therein were lying with him. The learned Appellate Court has added an article viz. Washing machine in the said list and the petitioner must be contended with such grant of decree, particularly, when there was no serious attempt on her part to prove her case with regard to dowry articles.
3. The claim of maintenance, which was granted to the petitioner by the learned Judge Family Court, has been refused by the learned Appellate Court treating the same as some "benefit" to which the petitioner was not entitled tb claim 'from respondent No,
1. A Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance as of right from her husband. The petitioner attained the status of wife of respondent No,1 on 8-4-2006 when she entered into a Nikah with him and after such date, it was his liability to provide maintenance to the petitioner, who was his wife. This right which has also been recognized in view of Paragraph 320 of Muhamruadan 'Law by D.F. Mulla with regard to a Muslim wife seeking Khula. A divorce effected by Khula ' or Mubara'at operates as a release, by the wife of her dower, but it does not affect the liability of the husband to maintain the wife during her Iddat.
4. This Court in case of "Shafion Bibi v. Senior Civil Jude/Judge Family Court, Okara and another"
(1999 CLC 160) has held that the maintenance has always been considered as not a "benefit" but a "right" of wife and it was held that the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court to the extent of withdrawing the benefit of dower in lieu of Khula was correct in making decree conditional on returning of the same but the claim of maintenance was held as not a "benefit" received by the wife from husband and, therefore, it was not returnable in case of Khula, for, it was a duty of the husband to maintain his wife so long as she remained in wedlock. In the reported matter, the decree passed by the learned trial Court for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula to the extent of relinquishment of claim of maintenance allowance was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Earlier in case of "Iftikhar Ahmed v. Husan Petri and others" (1988 CLC 2355), it was held that wife was entitled ,in law to maintenance and would not forfeit such right merely because she had sought divorce on the basis of Khula. Such principle of law, as noted above, also found support from another reported case of "M.Saglain Zaheer v. Mst.
Zaibun Nisa Zaheer alias Zaibi and another" (1988 M LD 427).
5. Earlier, this Court in case of "Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. . Additional District Jude, Sialkot and another"
(1991 CLC 1142) has dealt with similar situation where "Rukhsati" did not take place and the husband refused on that score alone the provision of maintenance to the wife and it was held that irrespective of the fact that whether "Rukhsati" takes place or not, it is the entitlement of the wife 'to have maintenance from her husband during subsistence of marriage and the wife was held entitled to the maintenance for a period the marriage between the parties had subsisted. Even after divorce, till completion of Iddat the wife is still entitled to claim maintenance and the fact that whether suit for recovery of maintenance was filed during subsistence of marriage or afterwards was of no significance, if during period for'which maintenance was claimed, marriage in between the parties remained intact.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is partly allowed. The decree, as was maintained in appeal with regard to dowry is maintained, however, maintenance, which was awarded to the petitioner by the learned Judge Family Court is restored at the rate of Rs,1,415 per month w,e,f, 8-4-2006 till the date the marriage subsisted in between the parties.