P L D 2005 Lahore 97 (PLP)

Syed Mukhtar Abbas for Petitioner. M. Asif Ismail for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2004. In the year 1980, on a fine day of month of October in Islamabad with all excitement and jubilation marriage between Mst. Anila Khan and Ch. Tahir Saeed would have been solemnized. One son and four daughters, are the offspring of the said marriage. After having spent days and nights and having lived for years together and blessed with five children disharmony and discord appear to have prevailed and overtaken the family in the year 1998, when they separated and since then are entangled in litigtion. Hassan (son), Mehvish, Arsheen, Palusha and Mehr (Daughters) who are petitioners before this Court took out proceedings for maintenance against their father Ch. Tahir Saeed respondent No.1. They had claimed a decree for past (w.e.f. October, 1998) and further maintenance. The learned Judge Family Court, Jhang proceeded with the trial of the matter, recorded evidence which was produced by the parties and decided the matter vide judgment dated 16‑9‑2003. Incidentally he was also seized of another matter i.e. suit for conjugal rights which had been instituted by the respondent. Be that as it may while deciding issue No.1; the Court on appraisal of the evidence, keeping in view the means of earnings and resources of respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that "In the circumstances, the monthly maintenance allowance payable since 1‑11‑1998 to onwards with 10% annual increment is considered appropriate at rate Rs.1600 for plaintiff No.2, Rs.1400 for plaintiff No. 1 Rs.1200 for plaintiff No. 3, Rs.1000 for plaintiff No.4 and Rs.800 for plaintiff No.5 while calculating the accumulation of this amount, Rs.55000, which admittedly the defendant paid in the year 1999, and Rs.9000, which he gave to the plaintiffs as Eidee in the year 2000, would be deducted therefrom." The decree was granted accordingly. On appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1 the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, however, has made alteration in the decree passed by the trial Court on his view of the matter that "Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant/defendant should make the payment of Rs.1000 per month as maintenance allowance to the minor plaintiffs Hussain, Mehwish, Arsheen and Palusha each with effect from the date of institution of the suit till their entitlement under the law or transfer of their custody in favour of the appellant/defendant in a legal manner, whereas the minor/respondent‑plaintiff Mehar is also held entitled to recover Rs.800 per month as maintenance allowance from the appellant/defendant with effect from the date of institution of the suit till his entitlement under the law or transfer of his custody in favour of the appellant/defendant in a legal manner." This petition has been filed against this judgment dated 7‑4‑2004 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The mother and father of the children both are also present in Court. It may be stated at the outset that family matters are not decided strictly on the yardstick of procedural laws nor any other principle aimed at the observance of the technicalities. The paramount consideration before the Court has to be the welfare and betterment of the minors. The Court in such a matter acts in a loco parentis position and large many considerations have to be kept in view. Thus after, having considered the respective stance of the parties, taking into consideration all the ambient circumstances, the status of the parties in particular of respondent No. 1 who is father of the minors and holds a responsible position in the Government of Punjab (Chief Conservative Forests) and that it is the cherished desire and intent of both mother and father that their children should get good education and should be raised in good atmosphere and in view of the ever increasing cost of living I have reached the conclusion that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge Family Court was adequate and quite reasonable. Reduction therein was riot justified or warranted and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable to that extent. Therefore, by restoring the maintenance so fixed by the learned Judge Family Court with 10% increase every year therein I restore the same with the modification that the maintenance will be payable by respondent No.1 with effect from the month of March, 2000 when the proceedings were filed by the petitioners. The petition is accepted to this extent and disposed of accordingly in these terms. No order as to costs. H.B.T./H‑48/L Order accordingly.