2003 PLP 984 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 12-4-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil. Revision No. 11 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against the petitioner on 8-3-1999. The same was resisted by the petitioner and out of pleadings of the parties issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, through his. judgment, dated 4-5-2000 allowed maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000 per month-to respondent No.1 from the date of institution of her suit till her marriage subsists while maintenance allowance of respondent No.2, daughter of the petitioner, was fixed at Rs.600 per month. During the course of execution petition filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner took up the plea that he had already divorced her and a certificate was issued in this regard on 29-6-1999. This objection petition was, dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, vide his order, dated 11-4-2001. Then the petitioner went in appeal against the above order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge; Sheikhupura, through his judgment, dated 27-10-2001. Revision Petition No.11 of 2002. preferred by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned 'Single Judge through his judgment, dated 12-4-2002, impugned herein: Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have perused the entire documents annexed with the petition. We are sorry to hold that in spite of passage of decree for maintenance allowance as far back. as on 4-5-2000 the petitioner till date has not honoured the same and is avoiding payment of the maintenance allowance on one pretext or the other. Said decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Shiekhupura, on 4-5-2000 and the petitioner assailed the same in appeal before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, which was dismissed vide his judgment, dated 2-6-2000. A The same was not further assailed, as such it attained finality. The maintenance decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, on 4-5-2000 and no certificate whatsoever was produced during the course of proceedings before the trial Court that divorce to respondent No.1 had become effective with effect from 29-6,1999. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 27-10-2001 which reads as under:-- "It is evident from the file that Nusrat Bibi decree-holder No. 1 and Asma Khaliq daughter (minor) of Abdul Khaliq filed suit for recovery of their maintenance allowance on 8-3-1999 and same was decreed on 4-5-2000. Afterwards judgment-debtor's appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge on 26-6-2000. It is evident from the decisions, dated 4-5-2000 and 26-6-2000 that in the previous round, of litigation judgment-debtor's contention regarding divorce to Nusrat Bibi was not accepted Even it is not understood how the judgment-debtor can agitate similar ground in objection petition. Moreover similar application has already been withdrawn by the judgment-debtor. Although principle of res judicata is not applicable oil miscellaneous applications, however, it transpires that the objection petition has been filed just to linger on the proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any illegality in the Order, dated 11-4-2001 by learned. Senior Civil Judge, Shetkhupura. So the appeal is hereby dismissed. The original record of the lower Court be returned immediately alongwith copy of this order. No order as to costs. File to records." All the aforestated resume demonstrates that the petitioner is avoiding payment of maintenance allowance on one pretext or the other and is dragging the respondents in an uncalled for litigation. Resultantly, for the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any force is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./A-257/5 Petition dismissed.