' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 24-5-2004 passed by learned Chief Justice in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Transfer Application No, 161-L of 2004 filed by respondent was allowed and Guardian Petition titled: "Muhammad Iqbal v. Parveen Iqbal, etc." was transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Family Judge, Chakwal to the Court of Family Judge, Jhang.
2. Precisely, the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that petitioner Muhammad Iqbal and Mst. Parveen Iqbal respondent had married about 20 years back and out of that wedlock three sons, namely, Adil Iqbal, Zain-ul-Abidin and Muhammad Awais were born and are alive. In the year 1995, petitioner went to United Kingdom where he contracted second marriage with permission of respondent and also did not pay any maintenance to respondent as well as her sons. Anyhow due to strained relationship, the marriage ended into divorce. Thereafter respondent filed suit for maintenance against petitioner before the Court of Family Judge, Chakwal and as a counter blast, petitioner also filed aforesaid Guardian Petition in the Court of Family Judge, Chakwal which was transferred vide impugned order.
3. We have heard Pirzada Noor Ali Shakoori, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner and respondent Parveen Iqbal and have gone through the record and, proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of Rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965 suit for dissolution of marriage or dower can only be competently filed before the Family Court where wife ordinarily resides. According to him since the respondent used to reside at Chakwal, as such, Family Court, Chakwal had the jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, the impugned order is not to accordance with law and suffers from legal infirmity.
5. The contentions of petitioner's counsel are devoid of force mainly for the reason that an amendment has been brought in section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, whereby a proviso is added in its subsection (2). By the said proviso irrespective of suit for dissolution of A marriage and dower, the suit for maintenance, personal property, belongings of wife, custody of children and visitation rights of parents to meet their children can also be instituted before Family Court where wife resides. It is borne out from the record that respondent Mst. Parveen Arbab Taimoor. The petitioner again assailed this order by filing C.P. No,93-P of 2002 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 6-3-2002 with the observation that "the amount if deposited, shall remain with the Court and ultimately shall be disbursed according to the judgment to be rendered in the writ petition filed by the petitioner". During pendency of the writ petition, he filed C.M.No,474 of 2002 for correction of the arrears of maintenance mentioned in order dated 19-2-2002. The learned High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that legally the petitioner was not bound to maintain his son because the son had attained the age of majority. He referred to section 370 of Mahomedan Law by D.F. Mulla and reiterated that a father in any case is not bound to provide maintenance to his adult son unless she is disabled or infirm.
5. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel for respondent No,1 controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment, and pointed out that the petitioner is a man of means and has sufficient property. The petitioner has inherited a huge agricultural and commercial property from his father; that he has a house on the main University Road which spreads over two acres of land and that his two sons from his other wife are living and enjoying luxuries of life from the income of the petitioner, each of them have been provided a car and none of them has taken any job/service, whereas Arbab Taimoor is getting education in a well reputed institution and mere maintenance of Rs, 4,000 awarded by the Judge Family Court and maintained by the First Appellate Court and upheld by the learned High Court, does not require any interference.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. Available. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is well-to-do person and providing luxury of life to other sons from his other wife by providing Car to each one of them, which fact is not denied by the petitioner. The maintenance allowance awarded by the Courts below is entirely in consonance with the law, which is purely for the welfare of the sons of the. Petitioner. The discriminatory treatment so given by the petitioner between his sons, has rightly been considered by the Courts below.
7. The impugned judgment is based on the proper appreciation of the material available with the Court and is also based on the well-settled principles of equity, fair play and justice.
8. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave dismissed.