Salim Khan, J.--Mst. Gul Fareen brought Writ Petition No, '26 of 2005 against Ahmad Nawaz and Addl. District Judge-II, Haripur with the grievance that the learned Addl. District Judge, Haripur vide judgment dated 1.12.2004 accepted Appeal No, 28/F.C. of 2002 partially to the extent that the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002 by the learned Judge Family Court, Haripur at the rate of Rs, 1000/- per month in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The petition was contested by Respondent No, 1.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset, objected to the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court, delivered in Appeal No, 28/F.C. of 2002 instituted on 16.12.2002 and decided on 1.12.2004, on the ground that, under Section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1962, the learned appellate Court did not have the power to hear appeal in a decree for maintenance allowance upto Rs, 1000/- in favour of the petitioner. The actual fact, however, is that a decree for Rs, 50000/- dower amount, Rs, 5000/- as delivery expenses and Rs,1000/- per month as maintenance allowance for whole period of desertion and future maintenance till marriage persists was granted in favour of the wife (plaintiff) while Rs, 500/- per month from July, 2000 till 30.10.2002 and Rs, 1000/- per month till the age of majority of Mst. Aysha Bibi (daughter of the parties) was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The amount so decreed exceeded Rs,1000/- when jointly considered for both the plaintiff against the defendant. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to PLD 2005 Lahore 324 and PLD 2005 Lahore 296 and contended that the objection was not maintainable.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, in the light of the interpretation of Section 14(2)(c) is correct because it is the judgment debtor who is to pay the decretal amount and it is for him that a restriction was imposed in respect of appeal for maintenance allowance of Rs, 1000/- or less. The decree against him becomes more than Rs, 1000/-when a decree for Rs, 1000/- for the wife and decree for Rs, 500/- or, for future purposes, for Rs, 1000/- per month has been passed in favour of the daughter. The embargo imposed by Section 14(2)(c) of the Act is a beneficial legislation in favour of the wife and children, but to the extent of Rs, 1000/-or less for a month as maintenance allowance. The inherent right of appeal of the judgment debtor has been curtailed only to this extent in order to avoid difficulties for the wife and children who are considered weaker in the structure of the society. But, a beneficial legislation in favour of one party cannot be detrimental to the interest of the other party, except to the extent that the difficulty is bearable by the other party. The legislature, in their wisdom, considered that the payment of maintenance allowance upto Rs, 1000/- per month was not unbearable for the father, however lower his financial position in the society may be. But, as the legislation is made, keeping in view all the citizens, the right of appeal revives to the judgment debtor when the total sum of the maintenance of allowance granted against him exceeds Rs, 1000/- per month.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner discussed the details of evidence of the parties and so did the learned counsel for the respondent. But, it could not be shown to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned appellate Court as well as the learned original Court. We do not find any good ground for interference in the judgments of the learned two Courts under our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.