2009 PLP 260 (MLD)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

This constitutional petition is directed against the judgments, dated 1-7-2008 and 28-7-2008, passed by the learned Courts below respectively, whereby the suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance filed by the respondents decreed.

2. Briefly the facts relating to the filing of the instant petition are that respondents filed a suit for the recovery of past and future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1000 per month. Further stated that the respondent contracted marriage with the petitioner and out of this wedlock respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were born. The respondent left the house of the petitioner and from that day she is living with her parents and the petitioner has not paid even a single penny on account of the maintenance allowance.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioner, controverting the claim of the respondents. The learned trial Court after framing issues out of the divergent pleadings of the parties recording the evidence and finally decreed the suit in terms that respondent No.1 is entitled to receive maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1000 per month from the date of institution of suit till her iddit period and the minors are entitled to receive the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.700 per month from the institution of the suit. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal. The learned appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the parties finally dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Wider instructions undertook to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000 on account of the maintenance allowance of the minors within twenty days but could not comply with the order. Today learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is totally against .the facts of the case. Next contended that the learned appellate Court has wrongly non-suited the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Next contended that the learned appellate Court has wrongly interpreted section 5 of the Limitation Act and reached to a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to extend any sufficient explanation.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings of both the learned Courts below. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned appellate Court has carefully appreciated the record available on the file.

6. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record.

7. The record reveals that the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Judge Family Court on 28-7-2007, in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was very well aware of the passing of the judgment and decree remained silent for more than five months and thereafter filed an application on 5-1-2008 for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree and other documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner even today could not explain the delay as required by law occurred firstly in filing the application for obtaining the certified copy and thereafter filing the appeal before the learned first appellate Court. It is now settled principle of law that the delay of each and every day is to be explained, whereas in this case the petitioner miserably failed to explain the delay even for one day. Even otherwise, both the learned Courts below after appreciating the evidence and other record available on the file reached to a concurrent conclusion that the respondents are entitled to receive the maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner, who is otherwise husband and father of the respondent, is bound by law to maintain them. There is no reason at all to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. This petition has no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.M.R./L-13/L Petition dismissed.