Through this petition consolidated judgments and decrees dated 12.02.2020 and 08.12.2020 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1, respectively , have been assailed. By virtue of the former judgment two separate suits for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles instituted by Respondent No. 3 to 7 were decreed and through the latter the appeals filed by the parties have been decided and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed whereas the one prefe rred by Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 has been partially accepted and the quantum of maintenance allowance to the extent of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (minors) has been enhanced.
2. Succinctly , the facts of the case are that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 about 25 years ago. Out of the wedlock Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were born. Due to altercation the between the spouses two separate suits for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles were filed by Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 against the petitioner , wherein, written statements were filed by the petitioner , whereafter , both the suits were consolidated and out of divergent pleadings of the parties as many as 06 consolidated issues were framed; evidence pro and contra was led, whereafter , vide impugned consolidated judgment and decrees dated 12.02.2020 both the suits were decreed. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties preferred their respective appeals, however , vide consolidated judgment and decrees dated 08.12.2020 appeal preferred by Respo ndent Nos. 3 to 7 was partially accepted and the quantum of maintenance, allowance already granted to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was enhanced whereas to the extent of remaining relief the appeal was dismissed whereas the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, therefore this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance allowance granted by both the learned Courts below . As regards the dowry articles he submits that there is no evidence available on the record to substantiate that any dowry articles were given to Respondent No. 3 at the time of marriage, therefore, impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside.
4 Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From the perusal of the available record, it transpires that while appearing as PW.1, Respondent No. 3 in her affidavit has mentioned the complete details about the dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage and this fact has also been endorsed by PW.2, whereas, contrarily no cogent, concrete and confidence inspiring evidence has been produced by the petitioner to rebut the claim of Respondent No. 3, therefore, both the learned Courts below with the application of their independent mind have consciously determined the alternate value of the dowry articles keeping in view the wear and tear of the same, which is in consonance with the principle laid down in a judgment reported as Shafique Sultan v . Mst, Asma Firdous and others (2017 SCMR 393 ).
6. As regards the claim of the petitioner as to his inability and scarcity of means to pay the maintenance allowance granted to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, there is nothing on the record to substantiate this assertion. Since the minors are the liability of the petitioner being father , thus, he has to maintain them in all eventualities and till date he has failed to discharge his liability , therefore, both the learned Courts below have rightly determined the quantum of maintenance allowance, which is neither exorbitant, nor is beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner .
7. Since the learned, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, in view of judgments reported as Muhammad Rafique v. Saima Rafique (Minor) and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1290 ), Tasawar Hussain v. Mst. Farzana Kausar and others (PLD 2015 Lahore 208) and Mst. Saman Naseer v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2020 .CLC 549), no ground for interference is made out.
8. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed in limine.