1991 PLP 719 (CLC)

(c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Maintenance‑‑ Courts below while granting maintenance had neither flouted provisions of law nor maintenance amount fixed by them was excessive‑‑‑Petitioner's objection against grant of maintenance being devoid of force and substance, his Constitutional petition was dismissed being without merit. Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioner. . Through this Constitutional petition, Muhammad Shafiq petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that the judgments and decrees dated 23‑9‑1989 and 8‑5‑1990 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat, and learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat, respectively are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that Imran Shehzad and Irfan Shehzad, minor children, are the sons of Muhammad Shafiq petitioner. Mst. Irshad Begum, respondent No.5, was the wife of the petitioner. She has been divorced by the petitioner. Imran Shehzad and Irfan Shehzad, respondents No.3 and 4, and Mst. Irshad Begum, respondent No.5, filed a suit for maintenance against Muhammad Shafiq petitioner before the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. Mst. Irshad Begum appeared as P.W.2. She produced Muhammad Hussain as PW‑

1. To rebut this evidence, the petitioner produced two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Aslam D.W.1 and Muhammad Ismail D.W.2. Muhammad Ismail D.W.2 is the special attorney of the petitioner. The learned trial Court allowed maintenance of Rs.500 a month to Imran Shehzad, Rs.400 a month to Irfan Shehzad and Rs.500 per month for a period of Iddat to Mst. Irshad Begum with effect from 19‑10‑1989. On the appeal 61ed by the petitioner, the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat, reduced the maintenance amount of the children to Rs.350 per month each and the decretal amount of Rs.500 in favour of Mst. Irshad Begum to Rs.300 per month, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the children were living with their mother Mst. Ishad Begum, so no decree for maintenance more particularly for past maintenance should have been granted in their favour and that learned Judge Family Court at Gujrat had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. As far the jurisdiction of the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat, to try the suit, I find that the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments. The children being the sons of the petitioner, the latter was legally obliged to maintain them wherever they may be living, so the minor children cannot and should not be deprived of their right to maintenance on the ground that they were not living with the petitioner/father. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance. The Courts below have neither flouted the provisions of law nor the maintenance I amount fixed by them is excessive.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion , there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. AA/M‑2599/L Petition dismissed.