1994 PLP 1158 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 23-2-1993 of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, wherein it has been held that respondent No.3, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, despite the fact that she has attained the majority, is entitled for her maintenance allowance till her manage. Facts briefly are that the petitioner filed an objection petition against judgment-decree dated 22-12-1984 passed by the Judge Family Court, Faisalabad, on the plea that the respondents had attained majority after the judgment-decree, as such, they are not entitled to the maintenance. The learned Judge Family Court, through his order, dated 23-6-1992 accepted the plea of the petitioner and dismissed the execution petition of the respondents.. Aggrieved with this order respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge rejected the claim of respondents Nos.1 and 2, Muhammad Akbar and Allah Waris and held them not entitled to the maintenance. However, respecting Mst. Shamim Akhtar, respondent No-3, it was held that she would be entitled for her maintenance at the rate of Rs.125 per month till her marriage. Hence, this Constitutional petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for some time. The argument that since Mst. Shamim Akhtar is living away from the petitioner, as such, she is not entitled to claim her maintenance, is devoid of any force. It is not denied that the petitioner after divorcing Mst. Irshad Bibi, the mother of respondent No.3, has contracted a second marriage and out of this subsequent wedlock there are issues. Respondent Mst. Shamim Akhtar has been living with her mother for the last many years. Petitioner earlier had failed to secure her custody through application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. In this background, it cannot be said that there are no justifiable reasons for Mst. Shamim Akhtar to stay away from the petitioner, as such, she cannot be denied her maintenance for the simple reason that she is staying with her mother away from the petitioner. The case of Dinsab Kasimsab v. Muhammad Hussain (1945) 47 Bom. LIZ 345(45), AB 390. quoted by the learned counsel would not advance his plea any further because in the case in hand the situation is completely different. Mst. Shamim Akhtar as stated above has got sound reasons to stay away from her father. The order impugned is just and proper and depriving the respondent Mst. Shamim Akhtar from a paltry amount of Rs.125 per month as maintenance would not be justifiable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-564/L Petition dismissed.