2010 PLP 1080 (MLD)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Muhammad Javed Iqbal petitioner was married to respondent No.3 Mst. Sana Bibi daughter of Gul Muhammad according to Muslim rites on 24-12-2006. Out of the said wedlock three children, respondents Nos. 4 to 6, namely Rehan, aged 2-1/2 Nayab aged one year and Rukhsar, aged one year were born. For some time relations between the spouses remained cordial and thereafter they became strained which gave rise to litigation between the spouses. The respondent lady filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance on 17-10-2008 for herself from August, 2008 till October and onward. She also claimed maintenance allowance for the minor children at the rate of Rs.3000 per month.

2. The petitioner contested suit, filed written statement and also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No.3 on 16-8-2008. Later on the petitioner absented himself and the learned Judge, Family Court, Multan passed the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 31-7-2009. Suit of the petitioner was decreed in his favour and suit of the respondents/minors was decreed to the extent that plaintiff No.2 Rehan was held entitled to receive Rs.2000 per month from the date of institution of the suit till completion of 18 years and plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4, minor girls, were held entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2000 per head per month till their marriages with the increase of 15 per cent per annum. Lady/Plaintiff No.1 Mst. Sana, wife of the petitioner, was held entitled to maintenance of Rs.3000 per month from the date she performs matrimonial obligations in the house of the petitioner till the existence of marriage, and in case of divorce, she was held entitled to receive maintenance till the period of Iddat of three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, being time-barred as well as on merits vide judgment and decree, dated 12-1-2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court and upheld by the learned lower appellate Court is harsh, excessive and exorbitant and beyond the source of the petitioner; that the petitioner hails from a labour class and hardly earns Rs.150 or Rs.200 per day so he cannot pay Rs.2000 to each of the minors.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below with regard to the maintenance of the minors awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court and upheld by the learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or any jurisdictional error committed by any of the two Courts below. The petitioner is father of three children who were born out of his wedlock with respondent No.3, so he cannot deny the maintenance of his children. He is bound to earn and pay the same as fixed by the two Courts below, which in these days of dearness is not harsh or excessive, but has little value keeping in view the price hike of daily use items. In these circumstance, I would not like to exercise my discretion under section 99 of the Constitution to disturb the findings of the two Courts bellow. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-285/L Petition dismissed.