MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner called in question the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2018, passed by the Trial Court and judgment and decree dated 16.02.2019 passed by the Appellate Court, whereby suit filed by respondent No. 1 ("respondent") for recovery of dower amounting to Rs.
5,00,000/- as per Column No. 14 of the Nikahnama has been concurrently decreed and the respondent has also been held entitled to receive Rs. 15,000/- total as maintenance allowance for Iddat period.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not been provided proper opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim and has wrongly been proceeded against ex parte, therefore, an opportunity be provided to him to lead evidence by setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. It is observed that the petitioner after appearing in the Court himself absented and did not opt to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent or lead any evidence in his favour and was procee ded against ex parte vide order dated 25.09.2018. No attempt was made by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order or ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.10.2018 and no plausible reason has been provided for his wilful absence. Consequently , there is no ground to interfere in the ex parte proceedings and decree.
4. As far as quantum of maintenance allowance is concerned, it is only Rs. 5,000 /- per month i.e. Rs. 15,000/- in total. No exception can be taken to the same in the given circumstances of the case.
5. As regard the dower is concerned, it has been specifically mentioned in Column No. 14 of the Nikahnama that Rs.
5,00,000/- have been fixed as prompt dower. Although the petitioner claims that the said right had been waived by the respondent through agreement entered into between the parties but as his right to produce evidence was closed and nothing is available on record to prove said assertion, therefore, no exception can be taken to the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed as per column No. 14 of the Nikahnama.
6. For what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.