' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner and respondent No, 3 were married. The petitioner on 25-3- 2010 filed a composite suit before the Family Court Islamabad, claiming dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty; recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs,5,31,250 as mentioned in the list provided by her; recovery of the gold ornaments weighing 9 tolas, which were asserted to have been given to her as dower at the time of Nikkah but snatched by the respondent subsequently; a house, which she claimed was given in lieu of dower and the maintenance amount @ Rs,6000 per month with effect from 15-12-2008. The learned Family Judge seized of the matter, upon conducting the trial allowed the suit as was prayed for, except that the maintenance allowance was reduced to Rs,3000 per month till the IDDAT period. Aggrieved of the above, respondent No,3 preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 19-7-2012 has, declined all other reliefs of recovery of dowry articles to the petitioner except maintaining the verdict of the trial court qua dissolution of marriage. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this judgment and decree vide Constitution Petition before the learned Islamabad High Court, which was dismissed through impugned judgment.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court as also the Constitutional Court have failed to examine the evidence available on record and thus the judgments under challenge are based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence; the two Courts have not even discussed the claims of the petitioner in respect of gold ornaments, dowry articles and maintenance, rather while confining to the issue of house has discarded the other claims of the petitioner.
3. Heard. As far as the petitioner's claim qua the house is concerned, we have examined the Nikahnama dated 23-3-2008, and find that the same (house) or a part thereof was never gifted to the petitioner or given to her in lieu of dower, rather it is clearly and unequivocally mentioned therein that she has been allowed to reside in the house. Regarding the gold ornaments, it is not spelt out from the evidence produced by the- petitioner that the ornaments received by her at the time of Nikahnama (weighing 9 tolas), were forcibly snatched from her by the respondent at any subsequent point of time, so as to maintain her claim in this regard. About the. Dowry articles, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No,3 has also filed a. List of dowry articles with the trial court conceding such articles (mentioned therein) as part of the petitioner's dowry and in his possession, thus the petitioner would be satisfied, if the dowry articles as per the list provided by the said respondent are returned, and if he fails to do so, the value of such articles/items which are not returned should be given to the petitioner as per her list of dowry articles (Exh.P/5). This is acceptable by the counsel for respondent No,3. For maintenance, it is submitted that the petitioner was forcibly kicked out by the respondent from his house and therefore as per law he is bound to provide her maintenance, thus the amount awarded by the learned Family Court vide judgment dated 29-7-2011 should be sustained. We have applied our mind to the evidence available on the record and are of the view that the learned appellate as well as the constitutional court has not assigned valid reasons while discussing the evidence on the record in respect of the maintenance claim of the petitioner and such judgments therefore, cannot be sustained in law. However, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties with respect to this particular claim, we are inclined to modify the judgment and decree of the trial court, in that, the petitioner shall be entitled to the lump sum amount of Rs,75,000 (rupees seventy five thousand) as against her claim of Rs,1,02,000, which amount shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of one month. In the light of the above, the judgment and decree of the appellate court as has been affirmed in the writ jurisdiction by the learned High Court is modified to the extent of the maintenance and also for the recovery claim of the petitioner i,e, the suit of the petitioner with regard to articles of dowry shall stand decreed as per the list provided by the respondent (Exh.P5) and in case, the respondent is not in a position to return any articles/items in accord with the said list, he shall be liable to pay value/price with respect to such articles/items in the list of dowry articles (Ex.P1) brought on the record by the petitioner. Thus this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed in terms noted above.