2009 PLP 563 (CLC)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Instant writ petition is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-9-2008 whereby the learned Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court and enhanced the maintenance allowance of respondent No.3 from Rs.2,000 to Rs.3,000 and of respondent No.4 from Rs.3,000 to Rs.4,000.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that respondent No.3 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of herself and for her one minor daughter (respondent No.4) against the petitioner. The learned trial Court framed the issues arising out of pleadings of the parties and after recording the evidence, the suit for maintenance allowance of respondent No.3 at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2005 till the effectiveness of divorce and qua respondent No.4 at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2005 till her marriage, was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Appellate .Court on 12-9-2008 on appreciation of the evidence, modified the decree to the extent of quantum of maintenance allowance and respondent No.3 was granted the decree at the rate of Rs.6,000 per month while respondent No.4 was granted the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,000 per month. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed any of the ground raised in the writ petition to the extent of maintenance allowance enhanced by learned Appellate Court in favour of respondent No.4 (minor) but argued that respondent No.3 was granted the maintenance allowance in wrong appreciation of evidence as the petitioner had no source of income as he is getting salary at the rate of Rs.7,

000. The learned Appellate Court according to learned counsel has not correctly appreciated the relevant evidence, and in any case, the enhancement was beyond the sources of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had filed an application to the learned Executing Court for fixation of installments wherein respondent No.3 had filed no objection. Respondent No.3 has been divorced and her claim would be only for 15 months and in these hard days, the amount granted to her is not excessive. Moreover, the petitioner is an employee in Zubaida Memorial Hospital and .getting Rs.18,000 as salary and also running a private clinic. Learned counsel referred to a copy of the certificate issued in this context, which had been signed by the Judge, Family Court on 11-4-2007.

5. Heard at preliminary stage.

6. The petitioner is a qualified doctor and having two wives is residing in separate houses, is admittedly running a clinic. It is in the evidence that he already had contracted marriage with four ladies and also had been visiting abroad. He also had entered into marriage after divorce of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has been divorced. She has been granted Rs.6,000 per month till the effectiveness of her Talaq which is for 15 months only. The evidence of the petitioner is not believable that he is getting only Rs.7,000 as salary while maintaining two families. In the circumstances, the rate of maintenance allowance enhanced in appeal cannot be said to be beyond his means or otherwise exorbitant. Even otherwise, bleak sources or means of income of husband or father is hardly a valid ground in the context of maintenance, so as to justify interference in the findings recorded by Courts of fact. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 12-9-2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law .and based on evidence. No case is made out for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in limine. M.H./Z-10/L Petition dismissed.