2010 PLP 86 (YLR)

JAMILA JEHANOOR ASLAM, J.

A very brief background to present writ petition is that petitioner and respondent No.3 were married and respondent No.4was born in this wedlock. The bond broke-up and respondent No.4 has been in the custody of respondent No.3 since his birth.

2. After the break-up of the marriage respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, maternity/medical expenses and dowry articles of respondent No.3. The family Court (respondent No.2) after framing issues and conducing the trial decreed the suit of respondents Nos.3 and 4 vide judgment/decree dated 13-9-2007 in the following terms.

3. Respondent No.3 was entitled to maintenance @ Rs.800 only for the periods of iddat whereas respondent No.4 was entitled to maintenance @ Rs.1200 per month till he attains the age of majority and after deduction of the interim maintenance already paid. Respondent No.3 was allowed delivery expenses of Rs.20,000 and a further Rs.4500 as treatment expenses of respondent No.4 (minor). As far as the dowry articles the concerned respondent No.3 was found entitled to the recovery of the same apropos the list attached by her and marked "D", or Rs.1,50,000 in the alternative. However, gold ornaments have been excluded from the list Mark-D.

4. Petitioner, not satisfied with the judgment/decree dated 13-9-2007 impugned the same. The respondents also preferred an appeal against the same judgment/decree of respondent No.2. The Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan (respondent No.1) heard both the appeals and consequently vide judgment/decree dated 1-3-2008 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, whereas the appeal by the respondents was partially allowed in the terms, that the maintenance of respondent No.2 was increased from Rs.1200 to Rs.3000 per month, till attaining the age of majority and the value of dowry articles was increased from Rs.1,50,000 as decided by respondent No.2 to Rs.1,52,000.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved of both the judgments/decrees dated 1-3-2008 and 13-9-2007 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, has impugned the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

6. I have perused the record and I agree with the reasoning of both the Courts below. The enhancement in the maintenance allowance is justified as Rs.3,000 per month barely covers the expenses of a growing, school going child in these days of double digit inflation. As far as the figure of Rs.20,000 is concerned there are two matters to be addressed qua this. First one is that either inadvertently as knowingly the petitioner has considered the figure as maintenance at least this is what he is terming it in the writ petition as well as in his submissions. This is a one time payment which is the delivery expenses. Second point that needs to be clarified here, is that delivery expenses are not limited to the expenditure of the actual birth, in hospital or elsewhere, they also pertain to the preparation for the expected baby. Babies are not taken home from hospitals wrapped in the newspapers as a lot of items need to be brought for the use of the baby after the birth, things like clothes, feeding bottles, formulae, bedding etc. All these are part of the delivery expenses too and it is the duty of the father as the provider to foot the bill for the basic necessities of his child. Thereafter, he has to pay maintenance, as decided by Courts, if the matter be in litigation.

7. The petition is without merits and the impugned judgments/decrees dated 1-3-2008 and 13-9-2007 need not be interfered within the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. H.B.T./S-150/L Petition dismissed.