MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.-This Constitutional petition seeks judgments and decrees dated 15.1.2004 and 4.8.2004 passed by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 learned Judge Family Court and learned District Judge, Rawalpindi to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby respondent No.1 was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month during her Iddat period and each of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.
4000/- per month since March, 2002.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner married with respondent No.1 according to Muslim rites on 5.3.1986. Spouses lived together and gave birth to three male children, Zeshan, Zohaib and Zaighum in the year 1988, 1990 and 1993, respectively. Relations between the spouses did not remain cordial and ultimately ended in divorce. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for their maintenance allowance with mandatory injunction that petitioner be directed to hand over the motor car given to them by his undertaking dated 12.1.2001. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded that petitioner is a Dental Surgeon and his monthly income is more than Rs. 100,000/- out of his private practice and he can easily pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month to each of them. They further detailed their expenses in the plaint and relied on an undertaking by the petitioner dated 12.1.2001 wherein he had undertaken to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
3. Petitioner being defendant in the suit contested it by filing his detailed written statement, denying his liability to pay maintenance to respondent No. 1 on account of divorce dated 27.4.2002 and as far as the other respondents, he pleaded that his salary is Rs. 15,000/- per month, out of which he cannot pay the maintenance claimed by them. Controversial pleadings of the parties, led to framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Judge Family Court, who was seized of the matter after doing the needful, decreed the suit of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 allowing maintenance to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month for her Iddat period only and granted maintenance to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 at the rate of 4000/- per month each from March, 2002 vide his judgment and decree dated 15.1.2004.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the learned trial Judge respondent No.5 filed an appeal .Before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 4.8.2004.
Thereafter, petitioner filed the Instant Constitutional petition with the prayer noted above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt petitioner is a Dental Surgeon, but he is not privately practicing as is evident from certificate Exh. DF-2, thus he is not in a position to pay the maintenance allowance awarded by respondents Nos. 5 and 6. He further submitted that take home salary of the petitioner is Rs. 14,435, whereas maintenance allowance of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month each will leave him with only Rs. 2435/- with which he cannot survive. Learned counsel for the petitioner further elaborated his arguments by arguing that even if it be assumed that to maintain respondents Nos. 2 to 4 is a burden duty according to his means. According to him, the maintenance awarded is excessive/exorbitant, thus the same may be reduced.
6. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 in response to notice by this Court have appeared through their counsel and urged that certificate Exh. D-2 is not correct because petitioner is doing private practice besides his job as a professional doctor in CMH. According to them, petitioner is earning sufficient and has no monetary problem, as he also owns considerable agricultural as well as other landed property. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents heavily relied on undertaking of the petitioner dated 12.1.2001, whereby he undertook to pay all his three sons monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. Lt was also urged that concurrent findings of facts recorded by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 within the ambit of their jurisdiction, deserve no interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court especially when there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. Reference was also made to a judgment by this Court in the case of Daud Abdul Khaliq Mehr vs. Dr. Sabira Sultana afid 3 others PLD 2000 Lahore 1323, in which as well findings recording maintenance were refused to be interfered.
7. I have minutely considered the respect arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Petitioner while appearing in the witness-box as DW-1 admitted in cross- examination that he executed the undertaking Exh. P-16. This document clearly proves that petitioner in the year 2001 undertook to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to his three sons. Means of income of the petitioner must have improved by lapse of four years and thus it is not acceptable that if a man who was paying Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance four years back, is not in a position to pay that amount at the present. Exh. D-1 though shows not salary of the petitioner as Rs., 14,435/-, but it does not include the other ancillary allowance available to him. Besides this, petitioner's own documents Exh. D/2 shows that he h drawing Rs. 6000/- per month as non-practicing allowance, ln this manner his earnings exceed Rs.
20,000/- a month. Petitioner also admitted in cross-examination that he himself got admitted his sons in Army School and provided them a rented house where they are putting up now-a-days.
Respondents have placed on record rent bill issued by Al-Shifa Trust Eye Hospital in the name of respondent No. 1 according to it the payable amount is Rs. 6945/- for one month. All the three respondents are school going and need schooling, including fee, books, uniforms and other feeding expenses. Viewing the standard of life given by the petitioner himself to his children and the standard of education, which is being administered to them, maintenance of Rs.4000/- per child per month is neither excessive nor exorbitant, in this expensive age of inflation. Above all, the maintenance awarded is within the means of the petitioner.
8. For what has been discussed above, no illegality or perverseness could be pointed out in the judgments rendered by respondents Nos. 5 and 6. Under law, a rightful decision in accordance with the record, given within the ambit of jurisdiction conferred on respondents No. 5 and 6 cannot be interfered/submitted in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.