' SHAKEEL AHMED BALOCH, J.---This judgment disposes of C.P. No,864/2012 filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 22nd October 2011 (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Family Judge Gwadar (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") whereby the suit filed by the respondent No,1 for recovery of dower, for her maintenance and for maintenance of her children namely Hasrat and Nusarat was decreed and against the judgment dated 9th July 2012 (hereafter referred as, "the impugned judgment") passed by the District Judge Gwadar, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed.
2. Facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 filed a family suit before the trial Court against the petitioner with the averments that the respondent No,1 entered into wedlock with petitioner on 17- 12-2008; that 100 Miscal Gold was fixed as Haq Maher of the respondent No,1, out of which 35 Miscal Gold being prompt dower Mahr Mu 'ajjal ( J ) was paid at the time of Marriage, whereas the remaining 65 Miscal Gold being deferred Maher Mu'wajjal ( Lf.r. ) is still payable against the petitioner; that out of wedlock two children/boys namely Hasrat (One year eight month) and Nusrat (Nine months) were born; that for few months the relations between the parties remained cordial, but all of sudden the petitioner changed his behavior towards the respondent No,1 at the behest of his mother and one neighbor Zarina and the respondent No,1 was given merciless beatings on many occasions without any fault on her behalf and the payment of maintenance was also stopped, which was earlier paid to the respondent No,1 at the rate of Rs,30001- per month.
It is further averred that the petitioner turned out the respondent No,1 from his house for three times, but the respondent No,1 on each occasion rejoined the petitioner, but again she was given merciless beatings and turned out from the house and under such circumstances now the respondent No,1 took shelter in her parents house and during such period the petitioner never approached the respondent No,1 and he also failed to pay maintenance either to the respondent No,1 or to the children and despite several demands he failed to pay 65 Miscal Gold as Mahr Mu wajjal. The suit was filed with the prayer to pay maintenance allowance for plaintiff/respondent No,1 and the two minors at the rate of Rs,4000/- each total Rs,12,000/- per month and also to pay the past maintenance of nine months total Rs,1,08,000/- and as future maintenance on the same rate. The respondent No,1 also prayed for return of 25 Miscal Gold as Mahr Mu'ajjal and 65 Miscal Gold as Mahr Mu'wajjal or value thereof on the same rate i,e, Rs,11,70,000/-.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The maintainability of the suit was strongly objected with regard to the payment of 100 Miscal of Gold and it was stated that the same was paid to her; that the respondent No,1 without the consent and permission of the petitioner left his house and despite demand the respondent No,1 has failed to perform her material obligations.
4. After receiving the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether plaintiff's 90 Misqal Gold are still now remaining against the defendant?
(2) Whether defendant forcibly expelled plaintiff from his house?
(3) Whether defendant is not paying maintenance to the plaintiff?
(4) Whether defendant is not paying maintenance to his both minor sons?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed for?
(6) Relief?
5. After framing of issues the respondent No,1 produced two witnesses and recorded her own statement. The petitioner, also produced two witnesses and recorded his statement.
6. On conclusion of trial, arguments were heard and the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment and decree 22nd October 2011 partly decreed the suit of the respondent No,1 and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs,1500/- per month, including past maintenance for six months totally Rs,6000/- as arrear and onward, besides to hand over 65 Miskal of gold as dower to the respondent No,1 or value thereof i,e, Rs,13000/- per Miskal.
The petitioner was also directed to pay maintenance of Rs,2500/- per month to minors for maintenance till their majority including past maintenance of six months on the same rate with 10% increase per annum.
7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Distinct Judge Gwadar, who vide judgment and decree dated 15th October 2012 was pleased to modify the decree passed by the trial Court by disentitling the plaintiff for past and future maintenance due to non-performance of her conjugal rights, whereas the decree to the extent of dower of plaintiff and maintenance of minors was maintained.
Against both the judgments and decrees impugned the petitioner has preferred the instant constitutional petition.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner has paid the remaining Haq Maher of 65 Miscal Gold to the respondent from time to time and she is not entitled to again make illegal demand for the same; that the petitioner is maintaining his minor children, whereas the respondent No,1 is not allowing the petitioner being father to meet his children; that the judgments and decrees of the court below suffer from misreading and non-reading of material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 stated that the petitioner being father has failed to maintain his children; that being the father of the minors the petitioner is duty bound to maintain his children; that the petitioner has illegally withheld the payment of 65 Miscal Gold as Mahr Mu'wajjal.
Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Legally, there are two kinds of dower i,e, Mahr Mu'ajjal "prompt dower" (immediately payable) and Mahr Mu `wajjal "deferred dower" (payable later), after a certain time. The prompt dower is payable on demand during subsistence of marriage tie, whereas deferred dower is payable on the time stipulated between the parties. In the instant case 35 Miscal Gold was fixed as prompt dower, whereas 65 Miscal Gold was fixed as deferred dower. Record reflects that the petitioner at the time of marriage/Nikkah has paid 35 Miscal Gold as prompt dower to the respondent No,1 and this fact has also been admitted, by respondent No,1 that at the time of marriage/Nikkah she received prompt dower of 35 Miscal Gold from the petitioner, hence the payment of 35 Miscal Gold and receipt whereof by the respondent No,1 is not disputed.
11. As far as the payment of deferred dower of Mahr Mu'wajjal i,e, 65 Miscal Gold is concerned, the same is payable on a date or time agreed between the parties and in case if no specific date or time is mentioned for payment of the same, the same is payable on the eventuality of dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. Admittedly, the marriage tie between the parties is in existence and the same has not been dissolved and perusal of Nikkahnama discloses that no specific date or time has been mentioned for payment of the same, hence at this premature stage the respondent No,1 cannot claim the payment of the same. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case Saadia Usman v. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon 2009 SCM R 1458. However, the petitioner is liberty to file suit for recovery of deferred dower i,e, 65 Miscal Gold after eventuality of marriage i,e, deatn or divorce. As far as the maintenance of the miners is concerned the petitioner has already agreed and is regularly paying the same to the minors.
' For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees judgment and decree dated 22nd October 2011 and 9th July 2012 passed by the learned Family Judge Gwadar and District Judge Gwadar are set aside, with no orders as to costs.