' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges orders dated 5-11-2011 and 16-5-2012 passed by the Judge Family Court and judgment dated 18-9-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore respectively.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner and respondent No, 3 got married on 4-11-'994 and from their wedlock two minor children namely, Noor Saba (daughter) aged about 14 years and Babar (son) aged about 16 years were born, which are in the custody of respondent No,3. The father of respondent No,3 borrowed an amount of Rs,6,50,000 through respondent No,3 and at the time of handing over the amount the father as well as respondent No,3 promised with the petitioner that they will return the said borrowed amount to the petitioner at the earliest, but when demanded respondent No,3 became anguished and left the house of the petitioner in the year 2008 with her own sweet will. While leaving, she had taken along with her 6 tola gold ornaments and 4 tola silver ornaments. She then filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, recovery of dower amount, recovery of dowry articles and for the recovery of maintenance allowance on 30-6-2010. This suit was contested by the petitioner. During pre-trial reconciliation proceedings on 9-5-2011 the suit for dissolution of marriage was withdrawn. Interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1200 per month for respondent No,4 was fixed. Thereafter, issues were framed and ex parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. Resultantly, on 5-11-2011, the decree for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,8,000 per month was fixed in favour of respondent No,4/daughter. On 16-5-2012 suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and- recovery of dower amount was decreed, whereby maintenance allowance was granted at the rate of Rs,10,000 per month while decree for Rs,1,50,000 as price of dowry articles and Rs,500 as dower amount was granted. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree an appeal was preferred which was partly accepted by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 18-9-2012 reducing it from Rs,10,000 to 8,000 hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in one case two judgments and decrees cannot be passed; that the petitioner is a poor person and working in a shop as employee and earning Rs,7000 per month; that the petitioner has deposited Rs,30,000, Rs,3,000 and Rs,6,000 in compliance of the order and deserves leniency; that respondent No,3 went to her parent of her own sweet will; that huge increase of 25% in the maintenance allowance is harsh; that huge increase of maintenance from Rs,8000 to Rs,10000 is without any reason; that the trial Court has failed to determine the social status of the petitioner, hence he prays for acceptance of this writ petition.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 submits that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; that Rs,90,000 is still outstanding; that the learned courts below have rightly passed the judgments and decree, hence prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Record reveals that respondent No,3 had withdrawn suit for dissolution of marriage for the betterment of the family. The maintenance allowance of respondent No,3 was rightly reduced from Rs,10,000 to Rs,8,000 keeping in view the social status of the petitioner, making it affordable to him.
The petitioner is duty bound to maintain his wife and children. Since the marriage is intact and perhaps such payment may pave the cordial relations between both the parties.
7. As far as passing of two decrees is concerned, this court does not find any force for such apprehension as decree dated 16-5-2012 and 5-11-2012 of both the judgments were challenged in appeal before the appellate court and are pertaining to the same parties. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the orders/ judgment passed by the courts below. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed.