P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

(b) Husband and wife‑Maintenance -‑ Quantwn ‑ Income of father Rs. 500‑Amount of Rs.100, held not such as he cannot afford to spend on two minor daughters but hardly enough for their food and clothing‑Husband's prayer for reduction in amount of maintenance declined‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 188), S. 488. (c) Husband and wife‑Maintenance‑Application under S. 488, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑Jurisdiction‑Father's permanent abode at place L‑Minor girls under mother's Hizanat also living at place L‑(Father's duty to provide maintenance to minor girls where so-ever they might be living)‑Court at place L has jurisdiction to entertain application. Sh. Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner. 2akiud Din Paul for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th May 1964. On the application of Mst. Rashida Begum, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad Cheema, Magistrate lat Class, Lyallpur, allowed Rs. 100 as monthly maintenance allowance to Rashida and Atiqa aged six and four years respectively, daughters of Mst. Rashida Begum through Sardar Muhammad, petitioner. A revision petition was filed against this order but the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. This is a further revision against the order awarding maintenance.

2. It is not disputed that Mst. Rashida and Atiqa are the two minor daughters of the petitioner, nor his liability to maintain them has been contested by the learned counsel. The learned counsel has urged two points against the order of maintenance. Firstly, that the maintenance allowance has been fixed keeping in view the educational expenses of the two minor girls. That the amount of maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code could not be fixed by including education expenses. That the amount is to be fixed to provide for the boarding and lodging only. The learned counsel has relied on Nur Din v. Khair Din (A I R 1933 Lah. 120), and Mst. Kumli v. Emperor (82 I C 257), in support of his contention wherein it has been laid down that while fixing the amount of maintenance the Court is not entitled to take into consideration the amount required for the education of the minors. With due respect to the Judges who thus interpreted the word `maintenance' I am unable to follow these authorities. Technically speaking the word `maintenance' would no doubt mean the expenses to be incurred for providing boarding and lodging for the minors but in any case if a father is ordered to pay for the maintenance of his minor children it is inconceivable that he will not be liable to pay for their education. The Legislator, I am sure, did not use the word `maintenance' in this section in such a restricted sense. If the minor children are not being educated because of the non‑payment of the expenses by the father then certainly it cannot be, said that they are being properly maintained by the father. The quantum of maintenance as fixed by the trial Judge was not contested before the learned Sessions Judge and it is being contested for the first time in this Court. The petitioner in addition to getting about Rs. 300 as his pay is proved to own sufficient areas of land and his minimum income from those land would be at least Rs. 200 p.m. Out of Rs. 50 that is his earning Rs. 100 is not such an amount which he cannot afford to spend on his two minor daughters. As a matter of fact Rs. 100 during these days will be hardly enough for food and clothing of the two minor girls. Even if I had agreed with what has been laid down in the above cited authorities I would no have reduced the amount of maintenance as this amount will be hardly sufficient for the boarding and lodging of the two minor girls. Thus I am not prepared to reduce the amount of maintenance as fixed by the trial Court.

3. Secondly it has been contended by the learned counsel that the Courts at Lyallpur had no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The petitioner admitted that he has declared Lyallpur as his home district. He is a refugee from the area now in India and he has made Lyallpur as his permanent abode. The two minors are living in Lyallpur. It is the duty of the petitioner to provide them maintenance where-so-ever they might be living The mother belongs to Lyallpur and according to law she is entitled to the Hizanat of the two minor girls till their puberty, therefore, it is the duty of the petitioner to provide maintenance to the two minor children at Lyallpur. In these circumstances, the Courts at Lyallpur had jurisdiction to entertain this applica tion. This contention has also no force. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.