SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- This writ petition calls in question the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the suit for grant of maintenance filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed on 23.1.2002 by Judge Family Court, Attock which was affirmed in The appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock on 3.4.2002.
2. Respondent Banni Begum was married to the petitioner. She born four sons and four daughters out of her wedlock with the petitioner. Two of her sons namely Muhammad Hasnain and Muzammil Hussain respondents Nos. 6 and 7, have attained the age of 18 years. Similarly, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have also attained the age of 18 years but they are still un-married. Rest of the respondents are minors.
3. On 26.9.2000, respondent filed a suit claiming future maintenance from the date of institution and the past maintenance for a period of 9 years before the institution of the suit for herself and for the minors. The petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. Necessary issues were framed. The parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court after appraisal of the evidence decreed the suit of respondent granting maintenance to respondents Nos. 2 to 7 to the tune of Rs.
300/- per month each for the past six years which comes to Rs. 1,29,601/-. Future maintenance at the same rate was also granted to the daughters till marriage and sons till they attain the age of majority. The suit of respondent No. 1 was, hoWever, dismissed. On appeal of the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated. 3.4.2002. Both the judgments have been attacked through this Constitutional petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to Surah Baqra, Ayah Nos. 286 and 233, Surah Tallaq verse No. 7 and Kitab-ul-Fiqah authored by Abdur Rehman Aljazeeri that the petitioner being old and sick suffering from disease, is not in a position to maintain the minors/respondents. He furtheradded that the petitioner draws pension and being old aged is suffering real hardships in maintaining himself from the meager source available with him and thus he should have been exempted by the learned Courts below from payment of the maintenance to the minors. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents argued. That the petitioner being father of the minors is duty bound to maintain them and there is no evidence to the effect that he is sick, infirm or a patient. According to him he draws pension and also has other source of income. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents is a meager one and the learned Courts below after appraisal of evidence has recorded the findings of fact which may not be interfered in the exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. I have considered the contention of the parties and examined the evidence.
6. Muhammad Hasnain and Muzammil Hussain, respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have attained the age of 18 years on 21.12.2001 and 29.10.2003 respectively, therefore, they are not entitled to grant of maintenance from the above dates.
7. The maintenance now to be paid by the petitioner is to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 only, who are all daughters. The total amount of maintenance monthly payable to them is Rs. 1200/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to each of the minors. This amount of maintenance is not excessive. These days prices of the edible commodities are touching sky heights. Living of person on the amount of Rs. 300/- is just impossible. The maintenance so granted by both the Courts below is already very low and does not justify any interference.
8. . The petitioner is a father, who, is bound to provide maintenance to minors. He is about 61 years of age. He appeared in Court on the date of hearing. Apparently, he was neither feeble nor looked infirm. Mere non-employment will not exonerate him from payment of maintenance. On record, there is no documentary evidence to support petitioner's sickness.
9. As far as the past maintenance is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 596) and Syed Hamid Ali Shah vs. Mst. Tazia Sultana (K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 439) and urged that grant of past maintenance falls outside the scope of personal-Mohammedan Law. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Reference can be had to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the case of Ghulam Nabi vs. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others (PLJ 1991 SC 316).
10. Both the Courts below granted the past maintenance from the date of institution of the suit and the minors in that period of time were living with their mother and the petitioner did not provide maintenance to them. Both the Courts below recorded findings of fact on this aspect of the case to which interference is declined.
11. No illegality has been pointed out in the judgment of both the Courts below. Similarly, no misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the Courts below has been brought to my notice.
The findings of both ,the Courts below are based on correct analysis of evidence and being concurrent do not admit of any interference, The exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is an extra- ordinary remedy which permits interference in case of an illegality and not for reappraisal of evidence. In this view of the matter, this Constitutional petition is dismissed having no substance in it.