' Instant writ petition is directed against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 6-3-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi/respondent No,3, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 11-12-1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi/respondent No,2, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights filed against the defendant/respondent No,l.
2. Alongwith this petition, another W.P. No,1386 of 1999 has also been filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1999 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi/respondent No,3 confirmed the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi/respondent No,2, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 for the grant of maintenance against the defendant/petitioner.
3. As both the writ petitions arise obit of the same consolidated judgments referred above, so these are being disposed of by this single order.
4. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner Ataullah contracted marriage with Mst. Rizwana respondent No,1 on 19-9-1994 subject to the payment of Rs,15,000 as prompt dower. The relations between the parties became strained just after marriage and as such Mst. Rizwana left the house of her husband and started living with her parents. This compelled Ataullah to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her wife on 19-7-1995. The suit was resisted by the defendant Mst. Rizwana, wherein she denied the contentions of her husband and prayed for dismissal of his suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Ataullah, another suit for grant of maintenance allowance was also filed by Mst. Rizwana, wherein she asserted that after one month and 14 days of this marriage, she was made to leave the house of her husband and since then she had not been paid any maintenance allowance. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month. This suit was also resisted by Ataullahn, wherein he controverted the contentions of Mst. Rizwana and asserted that she had left the house of her own accord and had been living in her parents' house without any justification.
6. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court and consequently following consolidated issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff's dower is still unpaid?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period?
(3) Whether the defendant is entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights? If so, on what terms?
(4) Relief.
' In support of her contentions, Mst. Rizwana appeared as P.W.1 and examined Muhammad Latif Butt as P.W.2. In rebuttal, Ataullah examined himself as D.W.1 and Mst. Bilqees Khanam as D.W.2.
7. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of Mst.
Rizwana regarding grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month whereas dismissed the suit of Ataullah for restitution of conjugal rights. Ataullah has felt aggrieved of the said judgments and decrees and has filed these two writ petitions which arise out of the same consolidated judgments.
8. Arguments have been heard and record persued.
9. The plaintiff/petitioner Ataullah filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights asserting that he was married with Mst. Rizwana on 19-9-1994 and a prompt dower of Rs,15,000 was fixed. His contention is that the said prompt dower was paid to her wife just after marriage. This contention stands repudiated by Mst. Rizwana. To prove his stand, Ataullah examined himself as D.W.1 and brought on record statement of Mst. Bilqees as D.W.2. Perusal of statement of Ataullah D.W.1 clearly reveals that he has not uttered even a single word regarding the payment of prompt dower of Rs,15,000. This silence on the part of Ataullah supports the stand of his wife Mst. Rizwana that she was never paid prompt dower. This being the factual position, Mst. Rizwana was justified in living apart from her husband Ataullah. The trial Court has rightly returned findings on issue No,3 which have been duly confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, it is held that the judgments of the Courts below are unexceptionable.
10. So far as the question of grant of maintenance is concerned, Mst. Rizwana has claimed the same at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month and she had been granted the decree in the said amount.
The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as Ataullah is being given only Rs,50 per day by his brother, so how can he afford a sum of Rs,1,000 per month as maintenance allowance for his wife who is living apart from him. The stand of Mst. Rizwana is that her husband is running a cloth shop and his monthly income is Rs,10,000. It is also admitted by the petitioner Ataullah that he runs his cloth business. This admission on the part of Ataullah clearly belies his later stand that he gets Rs,50 per days from his brother. Under the prevalent circumstances, fixation of maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month is just normal and one can hardly make his both ends' meet within such a meagre amount. The trial Court has rightly fixed the maintenance at the said rate. The contention of Mst. Rizwana has been confirmed even by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1999. Thus, the judgments of the Courts below regarding fixation of maintenance allowance are also unexceptionable.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the writ petitions are devoid of any force and are dismissed in limine.