' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioner has assailed the vires Of judgment and decree dated 28- 1-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Burewala, whereby an appeal filed by him 'against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Burewala was dismissed. The plaintiffs/respondents Nos.2 and 3 had contended that marriage between petitioner and respondent No,2 was solemnized on 25-3-2008 and out of wedlock the respondent No,3 was born. It was alleged that during the period the spouses lived together, the attitude of the defendant/petitioner was not good towards her. She further alleged that he turned her out of the house after snatching the articles of dowry worth. Rs,1,41,800. It was also alleged that defendant/petitioner makes sweets and earns Rs,7,000 P.M.
2. The defendant/petitioner contested the suit. It was contended that the articles of dowry given to respondent No,2 by her parents at the time of her marriage were worth Rs,50,000 only and after three months of marriage she shifted to the house of her parents. It is alleged that she had also taken ornaments and cash amount of Rs,1,00 000 from the house of his parents. He asserted that the articles of dowry are in possession of respondent No,2 and the value of the same is only Rs,50,000. The learned trial court framed the following issues.
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the maintenance allowance from the defendant as prayed for in their plaint? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the dowry articles from the defendant as prayed for in her plaint? OPP
(iii) Relief.
3. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned court proceeded on to pass a decree for maintenance @ Rs,1200 P.M in favour of respondent No,3 with 10% increase per annum and Rs,5,000/- in lumpsum for the period of "Iddat" in favour of respondent No,2 and decree for recovery of articles of dowry as per list Exh.P1 minus the articles mentioned at Sr.No,14 and 20% depreciation of the value, was also passed in favour of respondent No,2. The defendant/petitioner assailed this judgment through an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28-1-2011.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court and the learned Additional District Judge both have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective; that the list of the articles dowry Exh.P1 is not proved in accordance with law; that the P.W.2 had admitted that some articles might have been added in the list and as such the whole claim is doubtful; that the articles worth Rs,50,000 were given and it is proved on the record that the plaintiff/respondent No,2 had taken the same to the house of her parents and that the rate of maintenance is beyond the means of the petitioner because he is an employee on the sweet shop.
In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2006 M LD 555 (Peshawar).
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the petition. It .Is contended that the petitioner had himself admitted that articles of dowry were given to respondent No,2 but has not given the details of the same wilfully; that the price of these articles mentioned by him is not proved; that the standard of evidence prescribed for the civil suits may not be available in a family suits but the court has to decide the matter keeping in view the evidence produced by the parties; that both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and the impugned judgment and decree do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so no interference can be made in exercise of power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2004 CLC 1545.
6. According to respondent No,2 she was given articles of dowry as per list annexed with the petition. The defendant/petitioner did not refute her contention to the extent that dowry was given to her by her parents but contended that its value was Rs,50,000 only and not Rs,1,41,800. He, however did not give details of the articles of dowry. It is true that the plaintiff1respondent No,2 in her statement had contended that the list of dowry was not thumb marked by her and except her brother no one else put the thumb impressions or signature on it but she has given full details of the articles of dowry in her statement. P.W.2 has stated that articles of dowry were given as.Per list Exh.P1. In our, society, the marriage of the daughter or sister is arranged with the hope and prayers that she would lead a happy married life and usually the father or brothers do not take care in preparation of the list of articles of dowry and obtaining the signatures of the attesting witnesses. It appears that the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were not made applicable on the proceedings before the Judge Family Court as provided under section 17(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 by the law-makers keeping in view this aspect of the matter. It is an admitted fact that the articles of dowry were given. The plaintiff/respondent No,2 has given the details of these articles and the prices thereof. The contention of the petitioner/defendant that these articles were taken by the plaintiff/ respondent No,2 to the house of her father is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. The D.W.2 has stated that the articles of dowry were brought to the house of defendant/petitioner and they.Had taken the same to the different places wherever, they resided together. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The concurrent findings of the learned trial court and the learned Additional District Judge in this respect are unexceptional. The respondent No,3 is real son of the petitioner and has unlimited and unqualified right to get maintenance from him. The rate of maintenance is very reasonable. Similarly rate of maintenance for the period of Iddat in favour of respondent No,2 (i,e, Rs,5,000 for three months) is also not excessive. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.