2009 PLP 1323 (YLR)

SHAHJI RAHMAN KHAN, J.

Akram Said, petitioner herein, through the instant Writ Petition has assailed the judgment and decree, dated 27-6-2006 in Suits Nos.31/FC and 33/FC of 2006 of the learned Family Judge at Totally, District Buner, whereby he while dismissing the suit of the petitioner for conjugal rights, decreed the suit of respondent No.1 to the extent of recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000 per month from the date of institution of the suit and rest of the suit of respondent/wife was dismissed. The appeal of the petitioner there against was too dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge at Daggar District Buner, vide judgment, dated 14-3-2008. Hence this constitutional petition.

2. Mr. Saifullah Khan Khalid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that respondent No.1 being a disobedient wife had left her house with her own sweet will and residing with her son namely Ajmal Said. He next submitted the impugned judgment and decree in respect of the maintenance amount and refusal of petitioner's claim, is against law and facts available on the record. He further argued that keeping in view the eighty years age of the petitioner and his financial status, it is not possible for him to shoulder the burden of Rs.2000 per month as maintenance of respondent No.1 and that the learned Family Judge by ignoring this essential aspect of the case, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in him.

3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife, on pre-admission notice, contended that the learned Courts below after careful consideration of evidence brought on record, maintained the claim of the respondent/wife vis-a-vis the maintenance and as such the impugned judgment and decree being free from any infirmity muchless jurisdictional, is not open to any interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. We have gone through the material brought on record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A perusal of the material available on the record and the impugned judgment and decree would reveal that the learned Family Judge after taking into consideration all essential aspects of the case decreed the suit of the respondent/wife for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2000 per month for the respondent/wife from the date of institution of the suit and onward which in the circumstances of the case was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court, vide judgment, dated 14-3-2008, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant by any stretch of imagination. The impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below being thus free from any jurisdictional error are not open' to any interference in the exercise of extraordinary equitable discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without force and substance is dismissed. H.B.T./65/P petition dismissed.