12. That, para No.12 of the plaint is incorrect as the plaintiff No.

1 has no proof to the extant of fixation

of dower as 5 tolas or 3 tolas gold for any of the Nikah, and that the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled to get
any decree for it, as the detaile consw has already given in above .

13. That, para No.13 off the plaint is incorrect as no dowery was given to plaintiff No.1 for her marriage
with the dependent and it being proof less for plaintiff No.1. she no way is entitled for any decree and
recovery of it hence denied.

14. That, para No.14 of the plaint is incorrect as plaintiff No.1 has left house of the dependent with her
own freewell along side her father and having kept at the house of her parent without any reason and
without any proof of cruelty and despite the fact od jargas from the dependent for her resettlement at
the house of the dependent and having plainty denied performing conjugal right of the dependent, No
way is entitled for maintenance allownece with any rate for any period and a court decree fo3 the same.

15. That, para No.15 of the plaint is incorrect as no Jurgas were sent for any dialogues to the dependent
by the plaintiff No.1 while it was the dependent who sent Jirgas behind Plaintiff.

16. That, para No.16 is not pertain to the defendant however, the relevant court fee is not affined with
the suit nor this honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in hand.