' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner/defendants has challenged the judgment and decree dated 17-5-2006 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sialkot through which Nayyar Sultana was held entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000 for Iddat period (3 months) whereas respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were declared entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month per head with annual automatic enhancement at the rate of 10% from June 2001 till their age of majority and the judgment and 'decree dated 20-11-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition which came up for hearing before this Court and the petitioner only challenged the increase of 10% and to this extent this petition was admitted for regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents/decree-holders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 10% increase in the maintenance allowance is not justified as the petitioner is employed in the Post Office and drawing salary. Of Rs.9,450 per month, who cannot afford payment of such fixed increase as his pay is not being enhanced with such ratio. Also contends that the respondents can file second suit for the . Increase of maintenance allowance, if need be so and the Court at that time keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner can enhance the maintenance, but fixed increase has caused great inconvenience to the petitioner being a low paid employee.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposes this petition on the ground that respondent Talha Mahmood is student of 10th class while Usama Mahmood the other son of the petitioner is student of 8th class, who are studying in the school and day by day their expenses are likely to be increased, which is the responsibility of the petitioner to do the needful. It is also contended that instead of moving again and again to the Court, which is not easy task for increase in the maintenance; the learned trial Court has settled the dispute between the parties for ever and no illegality has been committed. Relies upon Ijaz Ahmad through Attorney v. Judge, Family Court and 5 others (2005 CLC 1913 (Karachi) and Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 SC 187) in support of his contentions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgments of the Courts below, as well as the evidence led by the parties. The concurrent findings of fact have been arrived at by both the Courts below after well appreciation of the evidence on the record, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor respondents/decree-holders has not been challenged by the petitioner. So far as the annual increase of maintenance at the rate of 10% is concerned, it is admitted that both the respondents are students of 10th class and 8th class respectively and are studying in school. Their expenses will increase day by day with promotion in the next, class and being grown up. Being a father the petitioner is responsible to maintain them in all needs, wherever they live till the age of their, majority. Keeping in mind the rate of inflation in the country and increase of demands of the minors with the passage of time as they will go to the higher classes, the learned trial Court has rightly ordered for annual 10% increase in the maintenance allowance. It will save the minor sons of the petitioner to knock the door of the Court again and again praying for the grant of additional allowance, which B is not an easy task and ,thereby they will waste their time and also money. As such, am of the view that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality while allowing fixed annual increase in the maintenance allowances, through the impugned judgment and decree, which is maintained and this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.