' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-2012 passed by Addl. District Judge and 16-2-2012 passed by Family Judge, D. G. Khan, respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No,3 were married on 31-3-2007. They lived together till the year before filing of the suit by the respondent/plaintiff. Relations between the spouses remained cordial for some time but thereafter started straining as the petitioner did not pay sustenance to the respondent. Per force respondent left petitioner's house and started residing with her parents.
' Respondent filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dowry articles and dower.
Petitioner filed a contesting written statement and out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed on which both parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence.
' Respondent in addition to her own statement as PW-1 also produced her mother (Jannat Bibi) as PW-2 and tendered the original receipts regarding purchase of gold ornaments.
' Petitioner/defendant in support of his averments in the written statement besides himself appearing as DW-1 also produced one Khalid Akbar as DW-2 and tendered in evidence original postal receipt as Exh.Dh-1 and divorce deed Exh.D-2.
' The trial court after sifting evidence of the parties held respondent entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs,1500 with past maintenance for one year at the same rate, dowry articles mentioned in the plaint together with the gold ornaments weighing 4-1/2 tola and silver ornaments weighing 20 tola and allowed recovery of dower of Rs,2500 and a plot measuring 5-Marla or its alternative value of Rs,200,000 vide judgment and decree dated 16-2-2012.
' The said judgment and decree was challenged in appeal. Learned Addl. District Judge upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-2012.
3. 'It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that relations between the parties could not last more than 3 to 4 months; while leaving the petitioner's house respondent took hard cash and gold ornaments and other house hold articles; that petitioner by post sent divorce deed to the respondent; that no issue regarding Talaq was framed by the trial court; that no basis for determining the value of the property was provided by the courts below.
4. Conversely, it was contended by the learned counsel for, the respondent that no specific plea regarding Talaq was raised by the petitioner in his written statement; the relevant paragraph is vague and evasive; that for a short while relations between the parties remained cordial but thereafter behaviour of the petitioner towards respondent became cruel and harsh and on demand for money by the respondent she was often mal-treated by him; that father of the respondent was working in Saudi Arabia for almost 15 years and had at the time of marriage given her articles of dowry and jewelry, the detail whereof is provided in the plaint, which the respondent and her mother appearing as a witnesses corroborated/substantiated. Respondent was made to leave the house in wearing apparels only. Gold ornaments and dowry articles were retained by the petitioner. The amount of dower fixed in the nikahnama was neither paid nor the dower fixed in the shape of 5-Marla of plot was given to her; that during cross- examination petitioner admitted that had the respondent performed her matrimonial obligations, 5-Marla of plot would have been given to her.
5. Arguments heard and available record perused.
6. It is evident that after marriage relations for a short while remained cordial and got strained as the petitioner failed to provide sustenance to the respondent. Per force she was made to leave the house. The courts below fixed maintenance of Rs,1500 per month which appears to be very reasonable under the circumstances. Though it was asserted that divorce was given after 3/4 months of marriage but the same is negated by the postal receipt Exh.D-1 dated 4-2-2011. Had she been divorced as asserted by the petitioner then obviously the divorce deed would have been sent at that time. The courts below have rightly held her entitled to maintenance for previous one year from institution of suit till Iddat period. Moreover, petitioner failed to bring evidence in order to prove that respondent was divorced after 3/4 months of marriage. It was for the petitioner to prove the factum of Talaq as asserted by him. It was admitted by the petitioner that he earns Rs,20,000 per month and had a second wife. In these circumstances monthly maintenance awarded was justifiable.
7. It was admitted by the petitioner during cross- examination that father of the respondent was residing in Saudi Arabia for the last number of years. Keeping in view the statement given by the respondent and her mother corroborating the list of dowry articles as mentioned in the plaint and also induction of original receipt of gold and silver ornaments, admission of DW-2 in his cross- examination regarding possession of dowry articles with the petitioner, the courts below validly decided issue in favour of the respondent.
8. In nikahnama the amount of dower was fixed at Rs, 25,00 and 5-marla of plot. Petitioner has made evasive reply to the assertions made by the respondent in the plaint in this regard.
Respondent No,3 in her statement categorically stated that neither Rs,2500 nor plot fixed as dower were given to her. The said statement was also corroborated by PW-2, mother of the respondent.
Onus to prove this issue primarily lay on the petitioner. DW-2 appearing on his behalf has not stated anything in this regard. Petitioner has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence nor proved the payment of Rs,2500 or 5-marla of plot for which no documentary evidence regarding its transfer was brought on the court file. That courts below rightly fixed Rs, 200,000 as value of the plot, had that been otherwise, petitioner would have brought some documentary evidence on record denying the same. In its absence the courts were justified in fixing its approximate value and held the respondent entitled to the same. Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Even otherwise concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction unless illegalities in impugned judgments and decrees are pointed out. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed.