2004 PLP 1834 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition seeks order dated 11-5-2004 passed by respondent No.7 to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequences, whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.3,000 per month as interim maintenance to respondents Nos.2 to 6.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioner entered into a the of marriage with respondent No.1 according to Muslim rites. This wedlock gave birth to five children (respondents Nos.2 to 6) but relations between the spouses did not remain cordial, which resulted into separation. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000 for respondent No.1 and Rs.8,00 per month for respondents Nos.2 to 6 pending which the learned trial Judge/Family Court (respondent No.7) as an interim measuredirected the petitioner to provide the maintenance allowance to respondents Nos.2 to 6 at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month vide his qrder dated 1-5-2004. The petitioner aggrieved of the interim arrangement made by respondent No.7 has filed the instant Constitutional petition with the relief noted above.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents Nos.5 and 6 are already major but have incorrectly been shown as minors, hence, maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000 for three children is excessive and exorbitant. It was also contended that respondent No.7 has erroneously granted the relief to the other respondents beyond their prayer in the suit. On behalf of the petitioner it was also submitted that there is no provision in the Family laws for granting interim maintenance to the minors, thus, the order impugned is void.

4. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record appended herewith. Besides the fact that the interim arrangement for payment of maintenance allowance, is within the competence of the Judge Family Court in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner, Khairpur Division Khairpur and another v. Ali Sher Sarki (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 242) and Muhammad Sarwar v. Sughran Bibi and 2 others (1996 MLD 1057), that grant of interim maintenance allowance to needy minor children, during the pendency of the suit can be directed, as the Court which can pass a final order of maintenance, can also make interim arrangement, and an amount of Rs.3,000 per month allowed by respondent is not excessive for 5 persons who according to petitioner's own showing are nearing maturity and its open secrete that in the present expensive age of inflation, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.600 per person, is just nothing. Above all the direction given by respondent No.7 is only till the final decision of the suit, thus, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner even if somemore money is paid for a short period, which is being paid to his own dependents and to none else. As regards the assertions that the two of the respondents are major, it is yet to be decided after trial by the respondent No.7 whether any of them is really major and being so, is not entitled to maintenance from his father. Be that as it may, the order impugned having been passed within the lawful framework of jurisdiction of respondent No.7 cannot be declared as prayed.

5. For what has been discussed above, the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor fanciful and at the same time, the same does not suffer from any legal defect. This petition has no merits in it and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-188/L Petition dismissed in limine.