2011 MLD 964 (PLP)

C.M. No.1 of 2011 SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.

Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. Disposed of. Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2011.

2. Through this writ, Syeda Sameera Akhlaq and Hera Naqi Syeda/ petitioners have called for the indulgence of this court to set aside the interim order dated 14-10-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Lahore whereby he fixed the interim maintenance of minor Hera Naqi Syed @ Rs.20,000 per month to be paid by Muhammad Naqi Syed/ respondent No.2 from December, 2010 on or before 14th of each month till the final decision of suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Syeda Sameera Akhlaq/petitioner No.1 is the mother of four minor children. Out of them three children have been illegal taken abroad to Saudi Arabia by respondent No.2/father on 11-8-2009. At present only one minor daughter namely Hera Taqi Syed is living with her. She filed suit for the custody of three rumor children and recovery of maintenance allowance in a composite form against respondent No.2 before the learned Judge Family Court Lahore. The petitioners are residing in a rented portion at the rate of Rs.25,000 per month. They are Canadian National and till the time, respondent No.2 had not deserted and abandoned them, the minor Hera Nadi had the opportunity of getting education from American School of high profile. Expenses of the petitioners including maintenance of vehicle, utility bills, grocery, tuition fee, salary of driver, clothing, medical, tours and other miscellaneous expenses comes to Rs.1,70,

000. Father of the minor is Finance Director in Kingdom Hospital Riaz, Saudi Arabia. He earns net salary of 22,000 Saudi Riyal which is equal to Pak Rs.5,00,

000. After including bonus, his salary package is not less than Rs.6,00,

000. The petitioners filed application under section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for the grant of interim maintenance to the petitioners Rs.1,70,000 per month. However, the learned Judge Family Court vide impugned order dated 14-10-2010 fixed the interim maintenance to the extent of minor @ Rs.20,000 per month only which is too low and not justifiable. Learned Judge Family Court ignored the interim maintenance of petitioner No.1 without any reason. Under the law, the respondent No.2 is obliged to provide maintenance to his child and wife according to his financial position. The fact that respondent No.2 is earning Rs.6,00,000 has not been denied by him. Learned Judge Family Court has passed the impugned order for the grant of interim maintenance to the minor without taking into account the social status of the parties, earning of respondent No.2, his capacity to pay and requirements of the minor and the wife. The petitioner No.1 is still the wife of respondent No.2. No talaq has been effected in view of the order dated 17-10-2009 passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council, Iqbal Town as notice of talaq had been dismissed by the Chairman Arbitration Council. Hence, this writ.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the documents available on the file.

5. Impugned interim order dated 14-12-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Lahore reads as under: Present:-Counsel for plaintiff Ch. Khawar Farooq, advocate; counsel for defendant Muhammad Rafi Syed advocate; plaintiff in person; attorney of defendant absent. Absence of defendant shows his lack of interest in reconciliation proceedings so the same is declared failed. The plaintiff has prayed for interim maintenance allowance for the minor contending that defendant earns Rs.5 lac per month, defendant just denied but did not specifically mention his income and his counsel got recorded statement that minor's maintenance be fixed @ Rs.10,

000. In these circumstances, interim maintenance allowance of the minor, when defendant's income is not specifically denied, is hereby fixed at Rs.20,000 per month which she shall be entitled to recover from the instant month on or before 14th of each month till the final decision of suit.

6. In para. No.2 of the written statement filed by respondent. No.2, he has contested the maintenance of petitioner No. 1 by contending that Syeda Sameera Aklilaq is not entitled for the maintenance because he has already given talaq to her. Notice was also sent to the Union, Council concerned and the proceeding were started by the Union Council where the plaintiff and her brother appeared and the proceedings remained pending in the court of the Chairman Arbitration Council No. 109 Allama Iqbal Town Lahore. It is also stated that on the request of the plaintiff, talaq according to her Fiqa i.e. Fiqa Jafaria has also been given on 27-6-2010.

7. It was probably due to the aforesaid reason that the learned Judge Family Court did not pass any order of interim maintenance to the extent of petitioner No. 1.

8. Again in para. No.13 of the written statement, respondent No.2/ defendant has denied the quantum of salary drawn by him as narrated by the petitioners/plaintiffs in their suit.

9. The petitioners have neither produced any proof of the financial status of respondent No.2 either before the learned Judge Family Court or before this court in writ. In these circumstances, learned Judge Family a Court rightly tentatively fixed the interim maintenance of the minor Rs.20,000 per month.

10. There is no denying the fact that the impugned order is an interim decision which can obviously be modified later. It is not a final order adversely affecting the petitioners. The above discussion leads to the obvious conclusion that no interference is called for. This petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine. ('Atta Muhammad v. Mst. Shahnaz Khatoon and 6 others, 2006 YLR 1708 (Lahore) and `Munir Alam through Special Attorney v. Civil Judge/Judge Family Court Lahore and 2 others 2009 CLC 442 relied upon). A.R.K./S-29/L Petition dismissed.