2000 PLP 2030 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.5 & Sched‑‑‑Maintenance‑‑‑Maintenance of daughters‑‑‑Role of legai fraternity in maintenance cases‑‑‑Decree of maintenance was passed against the father regarding maintenance of his daughters by Family Court on 9‑1‑1993 and the same was affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court on 15‑7‑1996‑‑‑Despite having failed .in both the Courts below, father did not comply with the decree‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Constitutional petition having no merit and suffered from laches, no interference was made in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below‑‑‑High Court desired that legal fraternity should take note of the cases of the nature and to tender proper counsel to the clients, and not to make them go from pillar to post to recover maintenance which a father was ordained to pay not only under the law of the land but under the Islamic law as well. Fazal Abbas Bukhari for Petitioner. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of the petitioner. On 27‑6‑1991 they alongwith their mother (respondent No. l) filed a.$uit against the petitioner for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the suit of respondent No. l but decreed the suit of respondents Nos.2 to 4 and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.700 per month to them w.e.f. the date of institution of the suit This decree was passed on 9‑1‑1993. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge. Hafizabad who dismissed the same on 15‑7‑1996. The petitioner did not pay any maintenance despite the said decree of the learned Judge, Family Court as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed an execution petition and ultimately were able to take the process to Phalia in the District of Mandi Bahauddin for attachment of the property of the petitioner and its sale. The decree is still under execution.

2. Present writ petition has been filed on 17‑8‑2000 to question the said judgments and decrees dated 15‑7‑1996 and 9‑1‑1993.

3. Learned counsel contends that since the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have attained majority, the decree cannot be executed by them against the petitioner. However, as to the merits of the said judgments and decrees, the learned counsel is unable to urge anything.

4. The argument sought to be raised by the learned counsel is frivolous. Under personal law of the parties a father is bound to maintain the p daughters till such time that they are married. I draw support from para.370 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law by D .F. Mulla for the said proposition. This is very unfortunate case where the daughters of the petitioner after contesting their lawful claim against their father are being deprived of the fruit of the decree passed in their favour by none else than their own father. Apart from the fact that the writ petition has no merits and suffer from laches, there is no moral or legal justification for claiming the relief being sought by the petitioner.

5. Before parting with this judgment "may stress upon the legal fraternity to take note of cases of instant nature and to tender proper counsel to such‑like clients to have pity on their own children and not to make them go from pillar to post to recover maintenance which a father is ordained to pay not only under the law of the land but the Islamic Injunctions as well.

6. This writ petition is dismissed with Rs.10,000 as costs to be paid by ; the petitioner to his daughters i.e. respondents Nos.2 to

4. A copy of this judgment be remitted immediately to the learned Executing Judge who shall apart from decretal amount also recover the said amount of Rs.10,000 and to pay the same to the daughters of the respondents Nos.2 to

4. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑316/L Petition dismissed.