MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J. -- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jaranwala, whereby the said Court has dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal as well the appeal in limine, and has also called in question the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby minor plaintif fs/respondents No. 2 to 7 were held entitled to recover maintenance @ Rs. 2500/- each per month with 10% annual increase from institution of the suit till their legal entitlement and also dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/- were decreed.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. It is noticed that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 24.02.1996, which was dissolved on the basis of Khula vide order dated 04.02.2014, which clearly shows that marriage subsisted for almost 18 years and from the said wedlock six children were born. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Courts below have failed to consider the financial capacity of the petitioner while allowing the minor respondents to recover Rs. 2500/- per month alongwith 10% annual increase, but the fact remains that irrespective of the financial status of the petitioner , it is the moral as well as legal duty of the father to maintain his children as per legal entitlement. The learned Trial Court keeping in view the needs of the minors and social status of the parties decreed the claim of the respondents for maintenance allowance for Rs. 2500/- per month each, which is barely enough to meet with their day to day , expenses. No exception can be taken to the same.
4. As far as recovery of dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/-is concerned, the learned Trial Court keeping in view the evidence available on the record, period of subsistence of marriage, norms and values of the society as well as wear and tear factor decreed the claim of respondent No. 1 to this extent for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the said findings of fact as well as in the impugned judgments. The assessment and appraisal of evidence is the function of the Family Court, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. This Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence produced before the Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by the said Courts, nor gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence unless any misreading, non-reading of record or any illegality is pointed out, which have not been established on the record, hence, there is no ground to set aside the said findings of fact.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.