2002 PLP 784 (MLD)

Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 18th May, 2001. I propose to dispose of Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2000/BWP, Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2000, Writ Petition No. 1003 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 776 of 2000 by this common order.

2. The facts leading to these Constitutional petitions are that on 10‑5‑1997, respondents in writ petitions filed by Raja Muhammad Khaqaan, filed an application claiming allowance of Rs.1,500 per month for their maintenance. The mother of the minors also claimed maintenance allowance only for `Iddat' period from 5‑5‑1996 to 5‑8‑1996. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. After recording the evidence of the parties, the Judge Family Court, decreed the suit of the minors awarding them maintenance allowance of Rs.500 per month each and Rs.1,000'per month to the wife for Iddat, period. On appeal by the minor the learned Additional District Judge, by accepting the appeal, enhanced the monthly maintenance allowance given to minors from Rs.500 per month each to Rs.800 per month each and allowance awarded to the wife for the `Iddat' period was not disturbed. The father/petitioner in Writ Petition No.1001 of 2000, Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.1003 of 2000 has challenged the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, enhancing the maintenance allowance given to minors from Rs.500 per month each to Rs.800 per month each and Writ Petition No. 776 of 2000 was filed by toe minors and Mst. Qamar Sultana, wife for enhancement of the monthly maintenance allowance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, was not maintainable as under section 14(2)(c) of the said Act, no appeal lies to the higher Court if the decree for maintenance is passed for Rs.500 per month or less. He further contended that the income of the petitioner is Rs.3,610 per month and in this meagre amount he has to support his family as well. He further submitted that petitioner is an owner of 16 Kanals as shown in Exh.P.2 whereas, the Court below has erroneously considered him owner of 50‑bigas. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner was not plying any wagons and nothing has been produced in the evidence to show that he is the owner of any wagon.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the prayer an the written statement wherein it has been stated that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed. Learned counsel while relying on 2001 SCMR 103 urged that absurdity is not intended by the law‑maker. He further submitted that the petitioner has hidden income as he is a constable.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leaned counsel for the parties.

6. It is correct that under section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal lies from a decree passed by Family Court for maintenance of Rs,500 per month or less the relevant section is reproduced:‑‑ 14(2) . "No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by Family Court:‑‑ (c) for maintenance of rupees five hundred or less per month." The contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner has no‑merit. The abridgement applies to the judgment‑Debtor and not to the decreeholder. The language of the section can have only one interpretation. The impediment against filing the appeal applies to the judgment‑debtor as the legislature thought it fit not to provide an appeal against a decree for a meagre amount. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that will lead to injustice and anomaly. If the Family Court awards maintenance allowance for Rs.500 per month of less, the wife for the minor children are entitled to file an appeal before the higher Court. By no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that the legislature intended to deprive the minors or the wife from their vested right of appeal. The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, indicates that the provisions of the Act are of a beneficial nature which enlarge the scope and also vest the Court with power of giving great relief with al right of appeal. It is well‑established that construction leading to absurdity is to be avoided. It is more in accordance with reason and justice. If the construction as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is adopted, this will lead to hardship and injustice to the minors. Such‑like interpretation cannot be imputed to the legislature and very purpose of the Act for which it was enacted will be defeated.

7. As far as income of the petitioner is concerned, it is on record that the petitioner has been purchasing the jewellery from the jewellers in lacs. The conduct of the petitioner is also not plausible. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rupees six lacs against the wife after the filing of suit for maintenance. The petitioner also owns land about 16 Kanals and is admittedly a Head Constable. In this view of the matter I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner tat the maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per mouth, to each minor is exorbitant. Similarly, I do not also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 776 of 2000 and hold that the maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month to each minor is quite reasonable. The father is responsible for providing funds for child's maintenance although the `Hizanat' to the child belongs to the another. As long as the child is with the mother she must be provided with sufficient means to maintain the child.

8. For what has been stared above, there is no merit in these writ petitions and are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./N‑146/L Petition dismissed.