2016 PLP 969 (YLR)

MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--The instant petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Zafarwal, District Narowal (respondent No.2) and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Zafarwal, District Narowal (respondent No.3), whereby respondents Nos.1 to 1(e)'s suit against the petitioner for recovery of maintenance and dowry has been decreed in the terms that the minor respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(e) have been held entitled to recover maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month per minor w.e.f. 1-1/2 months prior to the institution of the suit till their marriage in the case of respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and till their age of majority in the case of respondents Nos.1(d), and 1(e) with 10% annual increase, respondent No.1 has, however, not been held entitled to recover maintenance, she has, however, been held entitled to recover certain articles of her dowry as per list (Exh.P.4) or Rs.70,000/- in lieu thereof.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments and the decrees are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The impugned judgments and decrees are based on conjectures and surmises. They have been passed in violation of the principle of law that although a father is bound to maintain his minor children, however, according to his source of income.

3. Further submits that the petitioner was able to establish on the record that he was working as a driver in one of the Government Hospitals at Lahore and the total take, home pay of the petitioner is Rs.14,716/-. This fact was proved by petitioner by placing his pay slip on the record. Further submits that the petitioner has remarried, therefore, he cannot afford to maintain the minors according to the impugned decrees.

4. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to (e) supports the impugned judgments and decrees and contends that the petitioner has concealed his actual income. Prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. I find that the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed after a detailed appreciation of the evidence brought on the record. I further find that if on the one hand respondents Nos.1 to 1(e) were unable to prove the extent of the actual income of the petitioner then on the other hand the petitioner has done his best to conceal his real income. It may be worth noting in this respect that although the petitioner claims to be a driver in a Government Hospital, however, his pay slip states that he is a Naib Qasid. The petitioner's pay slip, therefore, becomes questionable. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees vis- -vis the maintenance of the minors.

7. I further find that although the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to establish a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence. He has, however, been unable to point out any instance warranting interference by this court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has similarly been unable to establish that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from exercise of jurisdiction or that they are perverse.

9. Under the circumstances, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. SL/A-22/L Petition dismissed.