2008 PLP 1657 (CLC)

ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.

Respondent No.3, an erstwhile wife of the petitioner, filed a suit with three fold claim, one for the maintenance allowance for herself and her minor daughter, second for the recovery, of dower amount and third for the recovery of dowry articles or their price in lieu thereof. The suit was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court granting Rs.1,000 per month as maintenance allowance each to the wife and the minor daughter.

2. It may be clarified that the order for maintenance allowance was passed at preliminary stage by striking off defence of the petitioner under section 17(1) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act. 1964 because he had failed to comply with the order for the payment of interim maintenance allowance. The maintenance allowance was, however, granted with effect from the date of institution of the suit. The impugned order, however, does not show as to what happened with the remaining claim of respondent No.3 regarding dower and dowry.

3. Be that as it may, respondents Nos.3 and 4 challenged the judgments of the learned trial Court in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge wherein not only quantum of maintenance allowance but also period of its commencement was disputed. The writ petitioner initially entered appearance before the learned lower Appellate Court but failed to attend the Court on 3-5-2008 whereupon he was proceeded against ex parte and the appeal of the respondents was also decided accordingly.

4. The evidence on record shows that the rate of maintenance allowance allowed by the Courts below is even much less than the bare minimum and also corresponds to the means of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge tightly referred to the contents of the written statement to conclude that at least since 28-4-2006 respondent No.3 was living as a deserted wife. It was, therefore, concluded that the maintenance allowance would be recoverable with effect from 28-4-2006 instead of the date of institution of the suit.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the maintenance allowance being only Rs.1,000 per month the decree was not appealable is totally misconceived. The bar on the right of appeal with reference to the amount of maintenance allowance is in fact against the judgment-debtor and not the decree-holder. The intent, purpose and spirit of section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is to protect the rights of the deserted wives or the minor children deprived of maintenance allowance. The insufficiency of maintenance allowance can, therefore, validly be challenged by them, if need be. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the judgments reported as Saeeda Alia v. Syed Ghulam Mursalin Naqvi and another 2004 MLD 306 Lahore and Mst. Neelam Nosheen and others v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan and others 2002 MLD 784.

6. So far as the opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner is concerned he had absented after putting in appearance before the Court. Therefore, he himself was at fault and the learned Additional District Judge was justified to proceed with the appeal in his absence.

7. Keeping in view all the above factors, it is crystal clear that the impugned judgments of the learned lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M.B.A./S-82/L Petition dismissed.