' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby, he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 25-6-2004 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mst. Nasreen Bibi/respondent No.1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance of her own as well as of two minor children against Ghulam Yaseen/petitioner in the Court of Judge Family Court, Muzaffargarh. The petitioner contested the suit and also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No.1 which was also contested by her. Both the suits were consolidated and issues were framed in view of divergent pleadings of the parties. Learned Judge Family Court, after examining evidence of both the parties and hearing their learned counsel, dismissed the suit of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, suit for maintenance allowance was decreed in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.500 per month each from the date of institution of the suit till their legal entitlement vide judgment and decree dated 25-6-2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, who, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23-11-2004 dismissed the same. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are against law and facts; that Mst. Nasreen/respondent No.1 being wife of the petitioner is bound to live with her husband but she refused to live with him and she is disobedient, therefore, she is not entitled to get her maintenance allowance; that in fact respondent No.1 wanted to live along with her parents and she compelled the petitioner to live as "Ghar Damaad" but he did not agree to it upon which she refused to live along with the petitioner in his house; that the learned Courts below wrongly relied upon a so-called compromise deed as the genuine had never been produced in the Court. Further contends that the learned Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the parties and misconstrued the law on the point, therefore, judgments and decrees passed by them are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel has pointed out that before the present round of litigation, respondent No.1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner which was decreed. However, after filing of Execution Petition, a compromise dated 6-6-2003 was effected between the parties but later on, petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the compromise deed which compelled respondents Nos.1 to 3 to file another suit for grant of maintenance allowance. Learned counsel further contends that it was settled between the parties through said compromise that parents of respondent No.1 would provide the petitioner a separate house where he would reside along with respondent No.1 and petitioner would pay the expenses of construction in instalments and now he cannot make escape from his words and has relied upon Muhammad Iqbal v. Addl. District Judge, Liaquatpur and others PLJ 2005 Lahore 1258. Also adds that concurrent findings of facts passed by the Courts below cannot be objected to by the petitioner for interference by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and that the execution of a decree was the job of trial Court and any objection in that regard can be raised and disposed of by the Executing Court and has relied upon Zahid Hussain and others v. Mst. Robin Begum and others 2005 CLC 423. Lastly submits that Family Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matter regarding the maintenance allowance, after taking into account the evidence brought on record has rightly invoked its jurisdiction to, grant the impugned maintenance allowance which does not call for interference and has relied upon Aman Ullah v. Mst. Jatti and others 1999 M LD 899.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused. It is admitted fact that according to Islamic Law a wife if bound to live with her husband and follow him wherever he desires to go and she cannot refuse to live with her husband without any plausible reason, however, there are certain exceptions to the general rules. The law recognizes the validity of express stipulations entered into even at the time of marriage which are incorporated in Nikahnama. If there is specific condition in the Nikahnama which allows a woman to live with her parents even after her marriage and her husband agrees to it, he later on, cannot force her to leave her parent's house. Here in the instant case, the execution of compromise between the parties is admitted by the petitioner, therefore, he is bound to follow its terms and conditions. The said compromise was effected between the parties before a Court of law, therefore, the parties are bound to fulfil its terms and conditions. In the compromise dated 6- 6-2003, Ghulam Yaseen petitioner agreed to live along with his wife in the house, to be constructed by her parents, therefore, now he cannot refuse to fulfil his obligations and cannot take the plea that Nasreen Bibi is not entitled to get maintenance as she is not living with him in his house. So far as respondents Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are children of the petitioner and he is bound to pay their maintenance. Learned Courts below reached to a just conclusion to which no exception can be taken. Even otherwise, it is well-established that a forum which has jurisdiction to decide a question of fact, may decide the same rightly or wrongly but it would not call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees which do not call for interference.
5-A. For what has been discussed above, I find no merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.