2010 PLP 47 (YLR)

KHALIL AHMAD, J.

Marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 29-1-1993 according to Muslim rites. Out of the wedlock respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were born. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit on 29-1-2005 before the learned Judge Family Court for the grant of maintenance. Suit was contested by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues; (1) Whether the plaintiffs have been expelled by the defendant because of maltreatment of the defendant? OPP. (2) Whether since what period and to what extent the plaintiffs are entitled to receive maintenance from the defendant? OPR. (3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD. (4) Whether the instant suit is false and frivolous and has been filed by not disclosing true facts and the same is liable to dismissal with costs? OPD.

2. Parties led their respective evidence. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12-10-2005 decreed the suit of respondent held respondent No.1 entitled to receive maintenance till the wedlock between the parties exits. Respondents Nos.2, 3 & 4 were held entitled to recover maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000 per month till they attained majority.

3. Both the parties filed separate appeals. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20-12-2005 dismissed the appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 4 and accepted the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the maintenance from Rs.3000 to Rs.2000 per month. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the maintenance fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is on the higher side; that the learned trial Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the petitioner and the findings are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The learned Additional District Judge analyzed the evidence and came to the conclusion that respondents No.2 to 4 are with respondent No.1 since 16-6-2005 onwards. Respondents have claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month. The petitioner in his evidence has stated that behaviour of Mst. Riffat Bibi respondent No.1 with the parents was very rude and she used to quarrel with them and had left the house on her own and in spite of repeated efforts made by him did not return back to his house. He admitted that minors are studying in school and that he had not paid any maintenance allowance to them. The learned trial Court keeping in view the evidence fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000 per month per head. Learned Additional District Judge keeping in view the statement of Mst. Riffat Bibi that she is not willing to live with the petitioner and will not compromise with him held that she being adamant and unwilling to live with petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance allowance from the petitioner and while keeping in mind the status of the petitioner reduced the maintenance from Rs.3000 per month per head to Rs.2000 per month per head.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that till date his client has paid. Rs.2,45,

000. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge warranting interference by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction and to reduce the same on the basis of evidence available on record. The learned Additional District Judge has already reduced Rs.1000 the maintenance of respondents No.2 to

4. The respondent No.1 has already been declined any main tenance. No further reduction is warranted. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is upheld. This petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. M.U.Y/P-15/L Petition dismissed.