' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---Respondent No,2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, recovery of dower and dowry articles. The suit was decreed to the extent of dissolution of marriage whereas the suit for maintenance remained pending when on 10-2-2005, respondent No,2 filed an application under section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for the grant of interim maintenance to the minor daughter-respondent No,3. The Court accepted the application and fixed Rs,1,000 as interim maintenance. The petitioner submitted an application for recalling the order of interim maintenance dated 25-4-2005. The same stood dismissed vide order dated 18-10-2005 on the ground that the Court has no inherent powers to recall or review its order under the Family Courts Act, 1964. Moreover, it was held that the amount of Rs,1,000 would hardly meet the needs of the minor and the same was fully justified. The petitioner again moved an application for recalling of both the orders dated 25-4-2005 and 18-10-2005 before the same Court. Again, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17-11-2005 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the tentative assessment of interim maintenance had rightly been made. After the dismissal of petitioner's application, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the said orders contending that the petitioner had not filed review applications but had filed applications for recalling of the orders under the inherent powers of the Court. It is. Further contended that the defence of the petitioner has been struck-off without affording any opportunity to the petitioner for defending himself; that the petitioner's financial position and income has not been taken into consideration while fixing the amount of maintenance; that the respondents may claim maintenance in the civil Court in light of section 488, Cr.P.C. Wherein total maintenance of the child is not more than Rs,500. Lastly, it is contended that the impugned orders have been passed with-out jurisdiction and without lawful authority.
2. The learned trial Court was fully justified in closing the petitioner's right of defence under section 17-A, ibid when he defaulted in payment of the interim maintenance. Thereafter, the applications of the petitioner for recalling of the orders were dismissed keeping in view that the family Court had no jurisdiction to recall or review its earlier orders. Learned counsel remained unable to pin-point any illegality or irregularity having been committed by the Courts below. Hence no interference is called for in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is No order as to costs.