' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 21-2-2001, respondents Nos.3 and 4 who are respectively the minor son and ex wife of the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month with effect from two years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. Respondent No,4 was denied maintenance with reference to a decree granted to her on the basis of Khula whereas respondent No,3 i,e, the minor child was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month with effect from the month of July, 1999. A first appeal tiled by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujjar Khan, being incompetent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1958 (W.P.) 596 contends that the past maintenance could not have been allowed to the minors. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the case of Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others PLD 1991 SC 543 contends that the past maintenance to the minor can lawfully be granted.
3. I have gone through the copies of available records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the only dispute is regarding the past maintenance. The said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was duly referred to by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case cited (supra) and dissented A from with the observation made therein and held that it looks unfair while the wife gets past maintenance, the children should not be deprived of this benefit. In this view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed in limine.