2009 PLP 790 (MLD)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Dr. Sharjeel Iqbal Mirza, writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the order, dated 11-2-2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, whereby he had granted interim maintenance to both the plaintiffs/ respondents Nos. 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.7000 each per month.

2. It was submitted that the impugned order was illegal; that the proceedings were not conducted by the learned Judge, Family Court, faithfully and that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner as also his counsel.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the judicial record appended to the writ petition. No appeal lay against the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, in terms of section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964. As the legislature in its wisdom has not provided any appeal against the order relating to interim maintenance passed under section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, writ petition would not be maintainable at all.

4. Nevertheless, considering the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings were not faithfully conducted by the learned Judge, Family Court, I have examined the order-sheet appended to the petition. The order-sheet showed and showed clearly that learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant was reluctant to argue the matter with regard to grant of interim maintenance under section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The judicial proceedings conducted by the learned Judge, Family Court would claim presumption of truth. Very exceptional evidence was required to contradict the same. The application moved by the petitioner/defendant before the MIT of this Court appears to have been unduly invented. The order, dated 31-1-2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, showed that the defendant was not present and for this reason, conciliation proceedings could not be brought to a logical end. On the next date (6-2-2009) learned counsel for the defendant/ petitioner had not advanced arguments and it was at his request that the proceedings were adjourned to 11-2-2009. On 11-2-2009, learned counsel for the defendant/writ petitioner appeared but again did not obey the orders of the Court. He failed to argue the case on behalf of the defendant/petitioner. It may be noted that a litigant has a right of hearing only if in obedience of the order of Court, he attends and pursues his case with serenity. Otherwise, a Court will not be debarred from passing any lawful order. Family laws were framed to decide the disputes relating to spouses and their children expeditiously. In the present case, the record showed that the petitioner/defendant had been trying to stultify the proceedings. The plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 indeed needed maintenance for their survival. On 19-1-2009 when the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and date was given by the Reader, it lay upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to have pursued the matter vigilantly and to inquire about the next date. On the next three dates (31-1-2009, 6-2-2009 and 11-2-2009) he was present but he did not argue the case. The impugned order, dated 11-2-2009 was passed directing payment of interim maintenance to the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Instead of paying the maintenance, the petitioner is spending money on un-necessary litigation. His conduct is not reflective of his bona fides. If according to him the rate of interim maintenance i.e. Rs.7000 each per month is excessive, he has a right on proper showings, to agitate the matter in appeal after the final decision/decree to be passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Admittedly, the petitioner is working for gain in U.K. (London) and address of his residence in London is given in the head note of the writ petition as under: "Dr Sharjeel Iqbal Mirza son of Muhammad Iqbal Mirza R/o 42-First Avenue Manoun Park London E-12-6-AN, through Special Attorney Muhammad Iqbal Mirza.'' Irrespective of his financial position, whether tight or easy, he is bound to maintain the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and

2. He is not entitled to any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is held to be untenable and is dismissed as such. H.B.T./S.69/L Petition dismissed.