' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiffs/petitioners (the wife and minor daughter of the respondent No.1) filed a suit on 22-4-2004 for grant of maintenance allowance against respondent No.
1. It was averred that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 entered into marriage bond on 11-7- 2000. Plaintiff/ petitioner No.1 lived with the respondent for about three months and became pregnant from him. Respondent brought the petitioner No.1 to the house of her father and thereafter never visited her. During her stay at the house of her parents the minor petitioner No.2 was born out of the wedlock. The hospital expenses amounting to Rs.20,000 were paid by the petitioner. Respondent is a practicing lawyer, jointly owns 10 squares of land and has also constructed a market on 'More Chak 92 Shamali' and has rented them out. He earns about Rs.1,00,000 a month and can easily pay Rs.8,000 per month to the petitioners.
' The suit was resisted alleging that he has been paying the maintenance allowance to the petitioners; paid the hospital expenses. The Petitioner No.1 also obtained Rs.40,000 for her personal expenses. The land in question is owned by the father of the defendant and not by him.
' Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to a decree for recovery of maintenance allowance, if so, at what rate and for how much period? OPP
2. Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of dower of Rs.5,00,000 as prayed for? OPD
4. Relief.
' The learned Judge Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit and granted the following relief:-- "In view of my findings on the above issues the plaintiff's suit for recovery of maintenance is decreed to the extent that the Plaintiff No.1 shall be receiving maintenance @ Rs.1,000 per month since April, 2002 till she is rehabilitated by the defendant in a separate house. Her refusal to cohabit shall disentitle her for the future maintenance. The plaintiff No.2 shall be entitled for the same amount of maintenance since the date of birth i.e. 29-4-2001 till she attains puberty and is got married or her custody is changed by that time whatever is earlier."
' Both the parties appealed, the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 2-6-2004 dismissed the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is a practising lawyer and the owner of land as such was a man of means. The maintenance allowance granted to the petitioners @ Rs.1,000 per month each is too low in this age of inflation.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners are not prepared to live with the respondent as such are not entitled to any maintenance allowance. He further submitted that the respondent is not a landowner. He cannot be burdened with an amount, which is beyond his means of earning.
3. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated in para.7 of the plaint that the respondent is a well-known practicing lawyer. He also owns 10 squares of land jointly. He has also constructed a market at 'More Chak No.92 Shamali' and receives rent from the same. In reply to the same in the written statement it is admitted that the respondent is a practicing lawyer, however, it is stated by him that the land measuring 200 Kanals is owned by his father and not by him. There is no word about the market and the rent received from it, which shall be deemed to have been admitted. Petitioner No.1 appeared as P.W.1 and deposed that the respondent was a practicing lawyer and can easily pay Rs.8/10 thousand per month to the petitioners as maintenance allowance. Very lengthy cross-examination was conducted by the respondent but nothing material has come out from the same. The respondent appeared as D.W.1 and admitted that he is a practicing lawyer. Rs.1,000 per month each as rn:,'ntenance allowance to the petitioners is too meagre an amount. Petitioner No.2 is only about four years of age and is a schoolgirl.
4. For what has been stated above this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 2-6- 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to him for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above after hearing both the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 20-4-2005 who shall assign the case to any of the Additional District Judges.