' SHOAIB SAEED, J.--- This writ petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 7-10- 2011 and 16-5-2011 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No,3 were married on 6-4-2007.
Relations between the parties remained cordial for a few years, but later on started straining, eventually respondent left petitioner's house. Admittedly, the petitioner from his first marriage had three sons and two daughters.
At the time of marriage prompt dower to respondent was fixed at Rs,2000 along with a 5 marlas plot as mentioned in Column No,16 of the Nikahnama. Respondent on account of acrimonious relations filed suits for maintenance, dowry articles and recovery of dower. Petitioner also instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Written statements in respective suits were filed by the parties. Pre-trial reconciliation proceedings failed, whereafter issues were framed and both parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Respondent No,2 through consolidated judgment and decree dated 16-5-2011 allowed maintenance of Rs,3000 per month from the date of her settlement with the petitioner till debarred legally. Dower was allowed as prayed for. Respondent No,3 was held entitled to recover the dowry articles or in the alternate its value of Rs,100,000. Suit of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed with the condition of payment of maintenance allowance and dower.
' Against the said consolidated judgment and decree appeals were filed. Respondent No,1 dismissed all the appeals and modified the judgment passed by respondent No,2, whereunder maintenance allowance was made conditional to respondent's cohabiting with the petitioner, to this extent the judgment and decree passed by respondent No,2 was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends; that respondent No,2 had rightly made, conditional maintenance allowance subject to cohabiting of respondent No,3 with the petitioner. As the respondent of her own accord was residing at her father's house and not willing to live with the petitioner, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance allowance; that marriage was solemnized on the promise that she would take care of petitioner's children from his first marriage and also to perform marital obligations; that she would be entitled to 5-marla plot in terms of entries in Columns Nos.16 to 18 of the nikahnama subject to performing marital obligations. The said entries have been misconstrued and misinterpreted by both courts; that allowing of dowry articles or in the alternate Rs,100,000 was contrary to the evidence on record. The rule of thumb was not applicable; that respondent No,3 was to establish her claim by producing tangible evidence; that material contradictions existed in the oral evidence produced by respondent's witnesses to corroborate the averments of the plaint and that the courts below erred in law by giving findings against the petitioner.
4. Conversely, counsel for the respondent No,3 argued that 5-marla plot was given in lieu of dower as mentioned against Column No,16, though the writing of said entry is spreaded over Columns Nos.17 and 18 as well but meaning as intended in respect of Columns Nos.17 & 18 of the Nikahnama could not be given/extended to the entries made against Column No,16 and that judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were in accordance with law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Parties entered into a written agreement at the time of marriage wherein petitioner committed to give 5-marla plot as prompt dower. The same is also substantiated by entries mentioned against Column No,16 of the Nikahnama. Apart from the same in Column No,16, 5-marla plot is fixed as prompt dower. The said entries have spreaded over Columns Nos.17 and 18, therefore, meaning attached to said columns cannot be given to the entry of Column No,16 as being argued by learned counsel for petitioner. The argument that the dower was conditional to respondent's cohabiting with the petitioner is not tenable as no such restriction can be attached to it so also maintenance allowance was correctly fixed and rightly allowed by respondent No,1 as no condition of settlement can be attached in such circumstances.
7. Since the respondent resided with her husband for a couple of years so the dowry articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage must have been used, therefore, the claim allowed is justified. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the judgments and decrees passed by both Courts below. This petition being devoid of I merits is, hereby dismissed.