Fazl-ur-Rehman Khan, J.--These two Writ-Petitions Nos, 883/2003 and 252/2004 are proposed to be disposed of by this single judgment in W.P. No, 883/2003, as both these writ-petitions, arise out of one and the same judgment/decree dated 7.5.2003 of the learned District Judge, Ka rak.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to these writ petitions are that Mst. Anar Mamana and her daughter Bakhtawar Jana, who are Petitioners in W.P. No, 883/2003, filed a suit in the Family Court, Karak against Misal Gul, respondent, for the grant of past, present and future maintenance on the ground that the defendant/respondent has failed to maintain them for the last 8 years without any reason.
Petitioner No, 1 is the wife of the respondent while. Petitioner No, 2 is his daughter from Petitioner No,
1. Petitioner No, 1 also filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs, 46314/- as value of the golden ornaments.
3. The respondent contested both the suits by filing written statements. Both the suits were consolidated and out of the pleadings of the parties. the learned trial Court framed as many as 6 issues, including the relief. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel, the learned Family Court, Banda Daud Shah Camp Court at Takht-Nasrati by judgment/decree dated 11.12.2001 granted decree for past maintenance to Petitioner No, 1 at the rate of Rs, 1000/- per month till the expiry of the period of her "iddat", on the ground that respondent has already divorced her on 21.9.2000. The learned trial Court granted Petitioner No, 2 past, present and future maintenance at the rate. of Rs, 500,- p.m. However, the suit of Petitioner No, 1 for the recovery of value of golden ornaments was - dismissed.
4. Both the parties, feeling not satisfied, tiled cross-appeals and the learned District Judge vide consolidated judgment/decree dated 11.12.2003, partially accepted the appeal of Misal Gul, respondent, and curtailed the past maintenance of both the petitioners to three years. next before the filing of the suit: while dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner No, I for recovery of the value of golden ornaments.
5. Still not satisfied, both the parties have filed these writ-petitions.
6. We have heard Mr. Taj Muhammad Khan, Advocate and Mr. Malik Muhammad Rehan, Advocate, learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. In support of the writ petition, the leaned counsel for Misal Gul, respondent, contended that the petitioners have left the house of the respondent on their own accord and in spite of jirgas', the respondent has failed to bring them back to his house, as such, in such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his argument, the learned counsel placed reliance on (1) PLD 1961 (W.P) Peshawar 66 and (2) 2004 CLC 1168 [(Shariat (AJ&K)].
8. On the other Land, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is abundance evidence that on his retirement from the Army service in 1989 the respondent not only completely stopped visiting his house but saline he has miserably failed to provide any maintenance to the petitioner therefore, the learned two Courts below have rightly granted past And present maintenance to the petitioners and also future maintenance to Petitioner No, 2 till her marriage but the learned District Judge has committed a mistake in curtailing the past maintenance of the petitions to 3 years because the matter is the matter is governed by Article-120 of the Limitation 1908 'and they are entitled to past maintenance for 6 years.
9. So far as the argument of the learned-counsel for the respondent that the petitioners had left the house of the respondent on their own accord is concerned, it is without force. There is sufficient evidence on record showing that on his retirement from the Army service in 1989, he neither visited his house nor provided any maintenance to the petitioners. This fact is proved not only from the evidence of the petitioners but also supported by the evidence of the respondent. No doubt, the respondent sent a 'jirga' to the house of the parents of Petitioner No, 1 to bring the petitioners back to his house but it was too late in the day because petitioners were deserted somewhere in 1988 and the lirga' was sent in the year 2000, just next before filing of the suits for recovery of past maintenance etc. If respondent failed either to visit his house or to provide any maintenance to the petitioners, then they had no alternative but had to abandon his house and to go to the house of parents of Petitioner No,
1. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason for interference in the findings of the learned two Courts below on the issue. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is, therefore, rejected.
10.However, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the curtailment of the past maintenance of the petitioners to 3 years is wrong, illegal and they are entitled to past maintenance for 6 years carries weight. There is no specific provision of law providing period of limitation for recovery of past maintenance u/S. 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961) and the issue would be governed by the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, under which the period of limitation is 6 years from the date, the, cause of action accrues. In this connection, reliance is placed on (1) PLD 1972 Supreme Court 302, (2) 1990 CLC 934 (Lahore), (3).1991 CLC 129 (Lahore), (4) 1992 CLC 1926 (Lahore) and (5) PLJ 1994 Lahore 387. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, accepted.
11. Accordingly, Writ Petition No, 883/2005 of the petitioners is accepted, the impugned judgments/decrees of the learned two Courts below are modified to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to past maintenance for 6 years, next before the institution of the suit. However, Petitioner No, 1 would be entitled to the recovery of the same till the expiry of the period of her `iddat' but Petitioner No, 2 would be entitled to the same till her marriage. Resultantly, W.P. No, 252/2004 of the respondent fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.