' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of the instant petition as well as connected writ petition No, 110-M of 2013, as both arising out of the same judgments and decrees of the two courts below in a family matter.
2. The precise facts of the cases in hand are that plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against petitioner-husband for dissolution of marriage, recovery of ten (10) 'Tolas' of Gold or its market value, dowry articles amounting of Rs. 30,000 and maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000 per month from May 2012 till decision of the case along with 'iddat' period. As per averments of the plaint, the marriage of the spouses was contracted on 19-3-2011 in lieu of ten (10) 'Tolas' of Gold, as dower, as per assertion of plaintiff, the same is still outstanding. Initially the relationship between the couple was cordial but later on it became harsh and the defendant used to abuse and beat the plaintiff regularly. The plaintiff-further alleged in her plaint that their parents, as per their financial status gave her dowry articles amounting Rs. 30,000 at the time of her `Rukhsati' . It was further alleged that defendant ousted her from his house on 5-5-2012 and since then she is residing in the house of their poor parents and, in such, un-cordial atmosphere, she does not want to live with the defendant, as wife in the prescribed limits ordained by the Allah Almighty. It was further added that defendant is owner of grocery store and financially sound; therefore, she demanded maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000 per month from May 2012 till decision of the case and for iddat' period.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement and vociferously denied the claims of plaintiff and took the plea for restitution of conjugal rights. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed nine (9) issues, including relief, recorded pro and contra evidence and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, vide the impugned judgment and decree, granted a decree in favour of respondent for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower ten (10) 'Tolas' of Gold, or its market value, maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000 per month from May 2012 till decision of the case along with 3 months of 'Iddat' period and dowry articles amounting Rs. 10,000.
4. Feeling dissatisfied from the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, the petitioner filed instant writ petition bearing No, 606 of 2012 to the extent of dissolution of marriage, while against rest of the findings of learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was too, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi-II, Swat vide the impugned lodgment and decree dated 23-2-2013. Hence, both the writ petitions.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the judgments and decrees are against the law and natural justice. It was further added that the petitioner proved the alleged lqrar Nama Exh- DW-1/2 by producing witnesses. Of the deed, but both the Courts below did not consider the same in its true perspective. It was further contended that while leaving the house of defendant, the respondent had stolen ten (10) Tolas' of Gold and cash amount of Rs. 6, 50,000 and for recovery of the same, the petitioner also approached the Co-Lin of District and Sessions Judge through an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of FIR against the plaintiff, but this vital aspect of the case escaped notice of the Courts below.
6. As against that, learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the two courts below with great vehemence and contended that the respondent proved her case by producing cogent and reliable evidence and being concurrent findings of courts below, warrants no inference.
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case gone through.
8. The perusal of record reveals that plaintiff filed a suit against petitioner for dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty, recovery of ten (10) 'Tolas' of Gold as dower or its market value; dowry articles amounting Rs.30,000 and maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000 per month till decision and for `Iddar period. The defendant-husband hotly contested the suit by taking the plea of restitution of conjugal rights and also made assertion that respondent had waived off her dower in favour of defendant through Iqrar-Nama Exh.DW-1/2 dated 19-2-2011. The learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording of pro and contra evidence decreed the suit in favour of respondent vide the impugned judgment in the mode and manner as narrated in the preceding Para of this judgment. The petitioner filed the instant petition to the extent of dissolution of marriage before this Court, as the same is not appealable before the appellate forum, whereas, the appeal preferred before the appellate Court against rest of the decree of learned trial Court was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-2-2013, wherein the learned appellate Court uphold the findings of learned trial Court. It transpired from perusal of record that the petitioner seems to be not aggrieved of the recovery of dower i,e, Rs.10,000, as the same was neither agitated before this Court nor the appellate Court. As far as the issue of dower is concerned, the perusal of Nikh-Nama, Exh.P.W.1/1 reveals that dower was fixed ten (10) 'Tolas' of Gold, the entire evidence produced by the defendant would reveal that he did not utter a single word or disputed the fixation of dower at any stage of the case, though he had taken contrary view that the respondent had waived off her dower through Iqrar-Nama, Exh.DW-1/2. Though the Iqrar- Nama was witnessed by three marginal witnesses but astonishingly only one marginal witness was produced and the other two witnesses appeared in the witness-box, out of them, one is brother of defendant, Dawlat Mand, whose name and signature is not available on the alleged deed. Most importantly scriber of the deed was also not produced and above all, the witnesses of the deed are contradicting each other on material points. Admittedly at the time of execution of deed, nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff, being a member of 'Pukhtoon' society and it is also apparent from record, that the plaintiff belonged to a very poor family, then, it is not appealable to prudent mind, that she would have taken this important decision of her life alone, especially keeping in view, the un-cordial and harsh behavior of the defendant towards plaintiff, so, the findings of Courts below regarding non-consideration of deed are in accordance with law, which warrants no inference. The issue of maintenance has also been rightly tackled by the Courts below, keeping in view the financial status of the defendants. The perusal of record further reveals that the respondent had taken shelter in Darul Aman, just to save herself from the brutalities of the defendant; otherwise, no woman like to leave the house her husband as well as that of their parents, who belonged to a very humble background, this brutal attitude of defendant is further affirmed from the baseless allegations of theft, leveled against the plaintiff.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below, we, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot intervene just to give a substitute of the findings of the courts below that too on mere factual aspect of the case.
10. In wake of the above discussion, the instant petitions as well as connected petition being devoid of any merits are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.