According to report Respondent No. 3 refused to accept service where-after the process server had affixed the copy of notice outside of his house. He has also not appeared therefore proceeded ex-parte.
2. Mst. Shimshad Bibi (Appellant No. 1) on her behalf as well as on behalf of minor son Jawad Asim (Appellant No. 2) filed a suit for recovery of maintenance, dower and dowry articles in the Family Court Tehsil Jatoi District Muzaf far Garh. Respondent No. 3 also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both sides contested the suit of each other which were consolidated. Issues were framed, evidence was recorded and vide a judgment and decree dated 30.07.2012 passed by learned Judge Family Court Jatoi District Muzaf far Garh the suits were decided as under: "The nub of the above discussion is that, suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed partially in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant. Whereas suit of the defendant for restitution of conjugal rights is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff No. 1 would be entitled to get maintenance allowance from the defendant @ Rs. 15001- subject to actual joining to the defendant. In case of failure to do so, she is not entitled for the same. Whereas minor plaintiff No. 2 would be entitled to get maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of institution of suit till his statutory period. Whereas claim of Plaintiff No. 1 for dower is decreed to the extent of five tola gold or its alternative value at the time of execution. Claim of plaintiff for dowry articles is decreed to the extent of Rs. 300001- in lum sum. Claim of plaintiffs for previous maintenance allowance is turned down. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
Copy of this consolidated judgment be annexed with the connected file Muhammad Hanif vs. Shamsad Bibi etc."
3. Respondent -No. 3 filed an appeal which was decided vide a judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jatoi. On the basis thereof the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Respondent No. 3 was decreed in his favour however it was held that Appellant No. 1 was entitled of dower to the extent of only 02-tolas.
4. Petitioners being aggrieved form the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge has approached this Court through the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that petitioners are aggrieved only on the findings with regard to dower .
He further maintains that the learned Additional District Judge without any reason disentitled the Petitioner No. 1 from recovery of 05-tola gold.
6. HEARD.
7. Nikkah Nama between the parties is an admitted document where gold 05-tola was specifically recorded as dower . The learned trial Court on the basis of its findings on Issue No. 2 after taking into consideration the evidence and particularly entries in Nikkah Nama had rightly declared appellant entitled for the recovery of 05-tola of gold.
Learned Additional District Judge on the basis of presumptions and without assigning any good reason wrongly modified these findings by reducing the gold to 02-tola.
8. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed . Impugned judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge Jatoi to the extent of modification of findings of learned trial Court with regard to Issue No. 2 are set-a side whereas findings of learned trial Court are maintained.