' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 7-7-2003, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 against him was decided against him ex parte by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, and also order dated 8-10-2004, passed by him, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's application under section 9(6) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
2. Briefly the facts of this case, as narrated in the petition, are that a suit for maintenance was filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court on 15-3-2003 against which, an appeal was preferred by respondents Nos.3 and 4 before the learned District Judge, Multan. During the pendency of that appeal, the present petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which was withdrawn on 30-10-2003 on the basis of compromise. The appeal of respondents Nos.3 and 4 was accepted ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 7-7-2003 and both the appellants were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs,1000 per month for past as well as future period along with Rs,2,500 as delivery expenses to respondent No,3. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed an execution petition on 17-10-2003, which is pending. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the execution petition, when he was arrested because of execution petition and then he was granted bail by depositing Rs,9,000 along with surety. An application was filed before the learned Additional District Judge under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, for setting aside ex parte decree dated 7-7-2003, which was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 7-7-2003 and order dated 8-10-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan have been challenged through this petition.
2A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing; that on account of compromise suit for restitution of conjugal right was withdrawn on 30- 10-2003; that the Learned Additional District Judge should have remanded the case back to the Family Court for a fresh decision and that the petitioner is in possession of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal was filed on 18-4-2003 before the learned District Judge, Multan, where the petitioner was duly represented through his counsel on 5- 6-2003. Further submits that the said application under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, for setting aside the ex parte decree before the learned Additional District Judge was hopelessly time-barred as it was filed on 24-2-2004 while the judgment and decree was passed on 7-7-2003. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn on 30-10-2003 whereas the execution petition was filed on 17-10-2003 and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that the execution petition had been filed. It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was mala fide.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was filed on 18-4-2003 by respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner was personally served, who entered appearance through his counsel. The appeal was adjourned on two dates for advancing arguments but on the third date i.e, 3-7-2003, his counsel did not appear, resultantly, the petitioner (respondent therein) was proceeded against ex parte and the ex parte arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were heard and the appeal was accepted on 7-7-2003. Subsequently, he filed the said application before the learned Additional District Judge for setting aside ex parte decree dated 7-7-2003. The petitioner had appeared before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, in appeal and thus he was in the knowledge of the proceedings, which were pending against him before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner did not appear intentionally and never enquired about the result of the appeal. Ultimately, he filed an application under section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, on 24-2-2004 after delay of over 7 months, which was hopelessly barred by limitation, for which he alone is to be blamed and suffer for the consequences. No ground for the condonation of delay was given, which could condone the delay. The petitioner was required to explain the delay of each day to which he failed. Ijaz Baig and 16 others v. Irshad Baig and 2 others (2003 CLC 1805) is relied upon. The respondents filed execution petition on 17-10-2003 while the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn by the petitioner on 30-10-2003, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents entered into the alleged compromise with the petitioner. The petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the suit. No statement regarding compromise was made by the present respondent/defendant on 30-10-2003.
6. The learned Additional District Judge while examining the evidence so recorded by the respondents allowed the appeal, while holding that the learned trial Court Committed illegality and impropriety and the evidence so produced by the respondents was fully corroborated and that in family suit only close relatives of the parties are relevant and reliable witnesses. The learned Additional District Judge allowed past and future maintenance of Rs,1000 per month for each appellant, whereas respondents had claimed maintenance allowance of Rs,5,000. This amount has been fixed keeping in view the evidence that has been produced by the respondents. No illegality has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and fixing this amount, which appears to be reasonable. Similarly, granting of delivery expenses of Rs,2,500 instead of Rs,5,000 is also reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality in the impugned judgment. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with costs.