1992 PLP 1006 (CLC)

Muhammad Afzal Wahlah for Petitioner. Gulzar Ahmad (herein petitioner) has prayed for grant of following relief in this Constitutional petition:‑ "In view of the above humble submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the order/decree dated 19‑2‑1991 passed by the Judge Family Court and orders dated 20‑3‑1991 and 10‑9‑1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad‑respondent No.1 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine may very kindly be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and accordingly be set aside with the direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits."

2. The facts in brief are; that the petitioner is the father of Masood‑ul -Hassan, Mst. Munaza Bibi and Muhammad Shahzad (herein respondents) who are admittedly minors. These respondents filed a suit for the recovery of maintenance against the petitioner in the Court of Family Judge, Faisalabad on 22‑10‑1988. The suit was filed through Mst. Jamila Bibi, their mother as their next friend. The suit was resisted. It was pleaded therein that Mst. Jamila Bibi was divorced by the petitioner; that the petitioner had lodged an application for seeking the custody of minors from Mst. Jamila Bibi; that the application was still pending adjudication. It was contended that in these circumstances the suit was not competent.

3. On the pleas of the parties, necessary issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence. Upon the consideration of evidence so adduced I‑:: the parties, learned Family Judge dated 9‑2‑1991 decreed the suit and awarded the maintenance to minors at the rate of Rs.200 each.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was fixed or preliminary hearing on 20‑3‑1991. On the said date, it was directed that appellant deposited arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance before. 10th of every month, the notice be sent to respondents. The case W.1:, adjourned on account of one or other reason on 6‑4‑1991, 7‑5‑1991, 8‑6‑1'i,~F, 2‑7‑1991 and 17‑7‑1991. On 28‑7‑1991 learned counsel for the appellant obtained short adjournment in order to comply with the order of this Cow: dated 20‑3‑1991. He was further directed to deposit the court‑fee of Rs.6,480 in accordance with the rule laid down in Mirza Daud Baig v. Addl. District Judge. Gujranwala and others (1987 SCMR 1161) before the next date of hearing i.e. 10‑9‑1991. On the said date of hearing his appeal was dismissed or, account ; l non‑compliance of the order dated 28‑7‑1991.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of the Court dated 28‑7‑1991 and 20‑3‑1991 were without jurisdiction and, therefore merited to be struck down. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Khalil v Mst. Zahida Parveen etc. PLD 1991 Lah. 51.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length. I am of a considered view that this petition is grounded on pleas of technicality. It hardly needs to be repeated that the petitioner under the law pp. bound to maintain his minor sons anti daughters. It is clear from this case, that he had failed to perform his duties. Even when the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to deposit the arrear by way of demonstrating the bona fides of the petitioner, he flatly stated that the petitioner was not prepared to do the same. He admitted that the petitioner has not paid a single penny by way of maintenance to respondents.

7. It is a well‑settled principle of law that the constitutional jurisdiction is intended to foster justice between the parties and to right a wrong. It is not to be exercised in favour of the persons who come to Court with unclean hand and in order to cause injustice to their adversaries. Reference be made to Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691) and Bcgum Shams un‑Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another (PLD 1982 SC 413).

8. Applying the principles to the facts and circumstances of this case, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the constitutional petition has been tiled with unbecoming motives. In result, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this' petition is dismissed in limine. I.B.T./G‑22/L Petition dismissed.