2008 PLP 875 (CLC)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.

Mst. Rukhsana Naheed, respondent No.1 filed suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner had stated that she was married to him, about 2-1/2 years back. She further stated that she was living in the house of her parents for the last 1-1/2 years but petitioner/defendant failed to pay her maintenance allowance. The respondent averred that petitioner was abroad and could easily pay her Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance allowance. The defendant/petitioner mentioned in written statement that respondent left his house in November, 2002 at the instance of her parents and that he had been paying her maintenance allowance. Learned trial Court framed issues, recoded evidence and decreed the suit brought by respondent/plaintiff vide judgment, dated 13-10-2003 and allowed her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month only for the period of "Iddat". The respondent filed appeal thereagainst, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Khushab vide judgment, dated 31-1-2004 and judgment, dated 13-10-2003 was modified and she was accordingly awarded maintenance allowance from November, 2002. Hence this writ petition.

2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

3. As mentioned above Mst. Rukhsana Naheed, respondent No.1 had filed suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner. She was married to petitioner on 16-2-2001. The petitioner has mentioned in written statement that she was living in the house of her parents since November, 2002. D.W.3, Dost Muhammad also stated that she was living with her parents since November, 2002. D.W.1, Haji Rab Nawaz who is father and general attorney of petitioner clearly stated that defendant/petitioner visited Saudi Arabia two months after his marriage. He further stated that respondent remained with petitioner till October, 2002. Dost Muhammad, D.W.3 stated that petitioner had been paying her maintenance allowance till October, 2002. He is paternal-uncle of petitioner. During cross-examination D.W.3 stated that petitioner earned about Rs.30,000 per month. In these circumstances, I find that respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance allowance from November, 2002 and learned Additional District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal brought by respondent. The judgment, dated 31-1-2004 shows that learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal brought by respondent/plaintiff after appraisal of entire material available on record. Even otherwise respondent was allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month, which is reasonable and the same is not excessive. The impugned judgment is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-42/L Petition dismissed.