' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of W.Ps. Nos.821/2011, 87-D/ 2013 and 130-D/2013 as all the three petitions are the outcome of one and the same suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that marriage of the parties has been dissolved by the Family Court, without considering any ground, provided for dissolution of marriage, in the light of evidence available on file. It was contended that wife/respondent had failed to prove cruelty whereas petitioner has successfully proved the case for restitution of conjugal . Rights. It was contended that no legal ground exists to dismiss the suit filed by the petitioner for conjugal rights. It was contended that Family Court has dissolved the marriage without any justification and contrary to the evidence available on file. He contended that apart from dissolution, other reliefs granted to the wife/respondent were questioned before the appellate Court which also dismissed the same in summary manner without dilating upon the real controversy between the parties. He contended that a separate W.P. No,130-D/ 2013 has been filed by the petitioner wherein the same impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and in connected writ petition, judgment passed by the appellate Court have been questioned. He argued that respondent No,1 has also filed W.P. No,87- D/2013 against the same judgment passed by Courts below to the extent of claim of 20 tolas of gold ornaments and 10 tolas of golden ornaments refused to her and rightly did so by the Courts below. He argued that both the Courts failed to decide issue No,
1. Which is fatal to the case. He questioned the findings on issues Nos.4 and 5 and also contended that respondent No,1 was a disobedient wife, willfully deserted from the house of plaintiff and thus not entitled for maintenance and any other relief under the law. It was argued that maintenance of Rs,2000/- for past and Rs,3000 as future per month allowed to respondent No,2 along with increase of 15% was totally wrong and harsh in nature.
3. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent/wife vehemently rebutted the arguments of petitioner and contended that Family Court has rightly dissolved the marriage and petitioner has no locus standi to question the same in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It was argued that findings on issues Nos.7 and 8 are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. He contended that husband has agreed to give 20 tolas of gold ornaments to the wife at the time of marriage and ten tolas of gold was given to her by parents and after some time, all the ornaments were taken from her and kept in the custody of his mother. It was contended that during inquiry by police, his mother has admitted that dowry articles and gold ornaments were lying with her. It was argued that suit of the respondent/wife be decreed in toto and as such impugned judgment be modified accordingly.
4. We have given deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The perusal of record reveals that marriage between the spouses took place on 17.10 . 2007 and Nikah Nama, Ex. P. W .2/1, was scribed, produced by PW-2, Nikah Khwan in his statement. The Family Court in reconciliation proceedings observed that the spouses have no soft corner for each other, rather were strained in relation, blaming each other responsible for the situation. It was also observed that serious rift exists between them and possibility of their reunion was rare. The evidence available on file lacks the seriousness of parties in their reunion and settlement. It is also clear and obvious from the record that the spouses would not be in a position to observe the limits of Allah Almighty and trial Court has dissolved the marriage and rightly did so. The petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment so far as the dissolution of marriage is concerned. The wife has alleged beating and maltreatment by the husband. The parties have accused each other for bitter relations. Local police has also been involved and statements were recorded on application moved to police by the wife and as such no case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction against issue of dissolution has been made out by the petitioner.
6. As far as the other rights claimed and partially allowed by the Family Court to the wife/respondent and affirmed by Court of appeal are concerned, Nikah Nama (Ex.P.W.2/1) denotes the factum of fixation of dower amount of Rs,1,00,000/-, the payment of which is not proved. The learned counsel tried to make the Court believe that in lieu of dower amount, twenty tolas of gold ornaments were given by the husband to wife as find mention on the margin of Nikah Nama, but columns Nos.15 and 16 of Nikah Nama specified for this purpose are blank and could not be believed. On the other hand, the petitioner deposed that it was paid on first night of marriage but failed to substantiate this stance through cogent evidence, rather taken contradictory stance and as such findings to this extent, duly affirmed by the appellate Court, warrant no interference.
7. The father is under obligation by law to maintain minor children, irrespective of fact whether residing with mother in her custody or otherwise. The amount of Rs,2,000 with effect from 04.4.2010 till decision of case and Rs,3000/- from for mother from date of decision till her marriage with 15% per annum increase, awarded to minor daughter by. Trial Court and affirmed by Court of appeal, seems to be quite reasonable and can hardly be sufficient to meet the everyday expenses of minor girl these days. Moreover, keeping in view the financial position and status of the petitioner, the amount of maintenance has been fixed rightly. Similarly, maintenance at the rate of Rs,1500/- was fixed by Family Court and allowed by appellate Court with effect from 04.4.2010, date of desertion till decision of case per month. The evidence in this respect fully supports her version and justifies the findings of Court. Nothing perverse and wrong pointed out and as such maintained.
8. Admittedly list of dowry articles annexed with the plaint speaks about articles given at the time of marriage by parents of wife to the husband. The petitioner/husband in his statement admitted that some articles were brought by defendant/wife at the time of marriage. The wife has claimed the value of dowry articles to the tune of Rs,3,39,200/-. She has also produced the receipts of certain items of dowry articles and the Family Court has considered only those in respect of which receipts are available and 67 items were not taken into account. She has successfully proved the claim regarding dowry articles and Courts below have granted value/cost of same articles to the tune of Rs,1,00,000/-, which is justified and findings to this effect are upheld.
9. The claim of wife regarding 20 tolas of gold ornaments and ten tolas of gold ornaments has been taken into consideration in the light of available evidence, which is not proved through tangible evidence. The wife had admitted to have received the gold ornaments at the time of marriage, however, whether these were taken back by husband as alleged by the wife/respondent and are in their possession are the questions to be proved by the defendant/wife, as burden lies upon her but failed to discharge the same and as such findings to this effect too, are not open to exception. The findings of the courts below are neither perverse nor arbitrary and thus are unexceptionable.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, all the three W.Ps. Nos.821/2011, 87-D/ 2013 and 130-D/2013 being bereft of any merit and substance are hereby dismissed.