Briefly stated that facts are that plaintiff/petitioner, filed a suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance against the defendant/respondent claiming maintenance allowance, for herself and for her son at the rate of Rs.1,000 and Rs.800 per month respectively. The defendant/respondent not only contested this suit, but he also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff/petitioner contested the said suit. Both the suits- were consolidated and following consolidated issues were framed:----
(1) Whether plaintiff No. l has wilfully abstained herself to live with the defendants. As such is not entitled to get maintenance allowance? OPD
(2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get maintenance allowance. If so at what rate arid since what period? OPP
(3) Whether defendant Arshad Mehmood is entitled to get decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
OPD
2. In support of her stand plaintiff/petitioner appeared herself as P. W.1, examined Sher Dil P. W.2 and Muhammad Ramzan P. W.3. She also brought on record document Exh.P.I and thereafter her counsel closed her evidence. In rebuttal the defendant/respondent examined himself as D.W.1, brought on record statements of Bashir Hussain D.W.2 and Muhammad Hanif D.W.3.
3. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court decreed the suit on 22- 6-1999 and fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000 and Rs.300 respectively. The defendant/respondent felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, dated 22-6-1994 and filed an appeal. The Appellate Court while maintaining the maintenance allowance of her son recalled the said order to her extent and simultaneously decreed the suit of defendant/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that she has brought on record sufficient evidence to prove her stand and the Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly. He further contends that petitioner was not residing in her parents' house of her sweet will but she was made to stay due to ill-treatment of the defendant/ respondent, that she has brought on record evidence regarding income of her husband and as such she was entitled to recover her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000, that the Appellate Court was also not- justified in decreeing the suit of restitution of conjugal rights against her.
6. Conversely the impugned judgment and decree has been supported by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent. He has, however, challenged the very maintainability of writ petition and asserted that while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, this Court has to see if the Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or in violation of any relevant statute or law and High Court, in such cases, cannot embark upon a reappraisal of evidence and proceed as if it were hearing an appeal from a subordinate Court and placed reliance upon Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522. He, thus, contended that it was the job of the Appellate Court to appraise the evidence and the same has been done in accordance with law.
That there being no jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree the writ petition being devoid of any force be dismissed.
7. It is evident from the facts stated above that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for her maintenance as well as for the maintenance of her son A.I Raza and similarly the defendant/respondent filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the parties contested the rival claim. Both the parties have produced evidence in support of their respective stand on the basis of which initial order, dated 22-6-1999 was passed by the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court reversed the findings except to the extent of maintenance allowance of the minor son. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to embark upon appraisal of evidence brought on record. I am afraid this is not possible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as held in the authority cited above. The evidence can be appraised by the Appellate Court only. No irregularity or jurisdictional defect has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner. This being the factual position, there is no force in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.