' This writ petition has raised an important question for the interpretation of section 14(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 with the following facts:- ' Muhammad Azeem Kashif and Muhammad Faheem Kashif, minor sons of Muhammad Lateef Kashif through their mother Mst. Naheed Firdous moved the learned Judge Family Court Bahawalpur for awarding the decree of maintenance against Muhammad Lateef Kashif, the writ petitioner, who was defendant in the aforesaid suit at the rate of Rs,1,500 (fifteen hundred rupees only) per month per child from May 2001 and uptil prescribed statutory period. The suit was instituted on 26-6-2001 and was contested by Muhammad Lateef Kashif, the writ petitioner by filing a written statement on 3-10-2001, in which he pleaded that Mst. Naheed Firdous was herself a teacher and had sufficient means to bring up the minor children, whereas the defendant was only a Stenographer with a meagre pay employed in the office of Superintending Engineer of Irrigation Department. He has denied the fact of earning a pay of Rs,8,000 per month from the aforesaid service. It was further stated in the written statement by the defendant that on 6-5-2001 he had paid Rs,35,000 as lump sum for the maintenance of the children and, therefore, was not obliged to pay any further, the maintenance. The learned Judge Family Court framed the issues and the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence in the Court. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Judge Family Court on 20-6-2002 passed a decree granting the maintenance allowance to the minor children at the rate of Rs, ,000 per child per month from 26-6-2001 till their majority. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Latif Kashif-defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur and was decided on 13-9-2003. According to the learned Additional District Judge the appeal was not maintainable in accordance with section 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, Amendment, 1999. He was of the view that the decree granting maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per child was not appealable. So challenging the validity of this view, the defendant-petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal was maintainable and the interpretation put to the provision by the learned Additional District Judge was incorrect in the eye of law. He has referred to 1999 MLD 2733 to support his arguments.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the mother of minors has strongly opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has invigorated to the view of the learned Additional District Judge, by referring to the following authorities:-
(i) 2002 CLC 270 (Muhammad Sharif v. Judge Family Court, Bahawalpur and 3 others); and
(ii) 2002 M LD 784 (Mst. Neelam Nausheen and others v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan and others).
4. I have heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the record of the case.
5. The cardinal point for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the appeal could be filed before the learned District Judge or not, when a decree for recovery of maintenance was granted up to the extent of Rs,1000 per month or more to one plaintiff. Another question arises is as to whether the whole amount awarded is to be kept into consideration for the filing of an appeal in the event of according Rs,1000 per month to each plaintiff who are more than one or it has to be examined on the basis of maintenance allowance per person. In 1999 M LD 2723 (Khawaja Muhammad v. District Judge Mansehra) the learned Division Bench from the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court has laid down that a decree granted in the favour of minors, if has fixed the amount of maintenance at the rate Rs,500 per month for each minor and it if calculated for' all the plaintiffs the total amount of maintenance exceeded from Rs,500 per month, the appeal would lie to the District Judge. In other words, the total amount of the decree was made basis for the appeal purposes. The other citation which, has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is of 2002 M LD 784 Mst. Neelam Nausheen and others v. Raja Muhammad Khakaan and others), in which the Hon'ble Judge of this Court had laid down that the right of appeal as contained in section 14 (2) (c) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 would be applicable to the judgment-debtor and not to the decree holder. To say in other words, if the decree granted is less than Rs,500 per month amount prescribed by law prior to ending or West Pakistan Family Courts Act (Amended) 1999 was competently appealable by the plaintiff-decree holder before the learned District Court for the enhancement of that rate of amount of maintenance and not by the judgment-debtor. The third citation referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents as 2002 CLC 274 (Muhammad Sharif v. Judge Family Court, Bahawalpur and three others) has not considered the ruling of 2002 M LD 784 while passing the judgment. Even hi this ruling the Hon'ble Judge of this Court has held that Constitutional petition against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court could not be filed when each minor had been granted decree at the rate of Rs,500 per month. In that case the Hon'ble Judge had dismissed the writ petition holding it to be not maintainable when the amount of Rs,700 was fixed by the learned trial Court as maintenance allowance for the minors. The crux of the above discussion and my conclusion is that:-
(a) When a decree is granted at the rate of Rs,1000 per month of less, the plaintiff-decree holder can tile an appeal before the learned District Judge for the enhancement of the rate of that maintenance allowance.
(b) In case a decree has been passed against the judgment-debtor for a sole minor up to Rs,1000 or more than 1000 then the judgment-debtor would be competent to file an, appeal before the learned District Judge.
(c) In a situation where a Family Court has awarded decree up to Rs,1,000 or less than Rs,1,000, the judgment-debtor would not be able to file an appeal before the District Court and the remedy of filing of the writ petition would be available.
' The interpretation of section 14 (2) (c) has been found by me on the basis of following words:-- ' Section 14 (2) (c): "No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Family Court for maintenance of Rs,1,000 per month." In subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 the words used are "decree passed". "Decree passed" would mean a decree which has been passed in favour of plaintiff as against the defendant". The word "passed" used in this subsection is of vital importance.
The meaning of which found in Black's Law Dictionary are---- Pass, to utter or pronounce, as when the Court passes sentence upon a prisoner. Also to proceed; to be rendered or given, as when judgment is said to pass for the plaintiff in a suit. To have more support for this interpretation, I would like to quote the following authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:--
(i) PLD 1994 SC 870 (Ghulam Hussain and others v. Mushtaq Ahmad and others)
(ii) 1992 SCM R 445 (Razi Khan and others v. Syed Karim Shah and others.
' Therefore, the law expounded by my learned brother Mr. Justice Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, J in 2002 M LD 784 is supported by the aforesaid rulings.
There is yet another legal aspect of the interpretation of these words. The words used in clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 14 is "per month" when the word "decree" is taken with words "per month" it does not mean that the decree is to be per month per person. The decree has to be regarded in toto and the amount as fixed in totality for which the judgment-debtor is obliged to pay has to be kept in mind. As the decree has fixed Rs,1000 per person, which becomes Rs,2000 for two persons per month, so the decree has to be considered to have been passed for Rs,2000 against the judgment-debtor. Accordingly, the appeal would lie in such case before the District Court.
' With these findings, the writ petition is accepted and impugned judgment and decree dated 13-9- 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is held to be illegal and unlawful.
Consequently the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge shall be considered pending for adjudication. The parties shall appear before the successor Court of learned Additional District Judge on 5-4-2004.