' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, The petitioner, through this constitutional petition, calls in question the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below whereby learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment dated 13-10-2005 decreed the suit for maintenance allowance to the extent of plaintiff/respondent No,1 at the rate of Rs,7,000 per month from the date of institution of the suit till the completion of her Iddat period, whereas suit to the extent of plaintiff/respondent No,2 was decreed at the rate of Rs,12,000 per month w,e,f, 1-7-2003 till majority with 25% increase per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mughees ud Din (petitioner) and Mst. Maryam Masood, (respondent No,1) were married to each other on 21-1-2000 and the dower amount was fixed at Rs,50,000. Out of this wedlock a male child Muneeb-ud-Din (respondent No,2) was born on 26-10- 2000. The relationship between the parties remained cordial for some time but afterwards they became strained. The petitioner was not maintaining to respondents Nos.1 and 2.
3. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance to her extent at the rate of Rs,32,000 per month and to the extent of minor child Muhammad Muneeb at the rate of Rs,20,000 per month as past maintenance allowance and also prayed for future maintenance allowance at the rate of 25,000 per month for plaintiff No,1 and Rs,35,000 per month for plaintiff No,2. The suit was contested by the petitioner/ defendant. Controversy gave rise to framing of issues. The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Judge Family Court after appreciating the evidence decreed the suit as aforesaid in para. No,
1. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment and decree dated 9-1-2006 dismissed the same, against which the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that maintenance allowance granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 is harsh, excessive and does not commensurate with his income. He referred to the salary certificate showing the salary of the petitioner as Rs,15,000. He also argued that neither respondent has deposed about income of the petitioner nor any evidence has been produced showing the income of the petitioner. It was further argued that he had married another lady and his wife is in family way, he is also bound to maintain his family. So the maintenance fixed by the learned Courts below is very harsh and excessive.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, and stated that concurrent findings recorded by the learned lower Courts are immune from interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence besides the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower Courts with their able assistance.
7. It seems from the evidence on record that respondent No,1 got divorce on the basis of Khula waiving her dower amount of Rs,50,000 in lieu thereof on the ground that she had developed hatred against the petitioner and could not live with the petitioner within the limits ordained by Almighty Allah. In this view of the matter the amount of maintenance fixed at Rs,7,000 per month to her extent is too harsh and same is reduced to Rs,3,000 per month for a period prescribed by lower Court with the consent of the learned counsel for respondent No,l.
8. As far as maintenance fixed at the rate of Rs,12,000 per month in favour of respondent No,2 (minor child of the parties) with 25% increase per annum till his majority is concerned, I have perused the written statement filed by the petitioner and there is no mention of the plea raised by the petitioner that he was a salaried person and his salary was Rs,15,000 per month. Similarly, affidavit tendered by him in evidence also does not speak about the, words of any certificate which was relied upon by him that his salary was Rs,15,000. Similarly, salary certificate Exh.D.2 placed by the petitioner on record has not been proved in accordance with requirements of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order because neither the author of the above said document appeared to prove the document before the learned trial Court nor any evidence qua genuineness of the said certificate was produced.
9. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that salary certificate was exhibited, which was not objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned it is settled proposition of law that any document placed on record or exhibited, which has not been duly proved, cannot be considered as admissible piece of evidence. So contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled.
10. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor man and amount of maintenance fixed to the extent of minor Muneeb-ud-Din is harsh is concerned, the same is against the stand taken by him in his petition for custody under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1925, wherein the petitioner himself stated in his ground No,9, which is reproduced below for facility of reference:-- "He is financially well of and able to give more of the material comforts of the world to the ward in addition to assurance of better education, mental grooming, bringing up, facilities of recreation and care of health etc."
' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is belied by his own contradictory stands taken before the learned Courts below. The learned lower Courts after appreciating the whole evidence on record have reached a just conclusion and fixed maintenance allowance of respondent No,2 at the rate, which appears to be quite reasonable keeping in view the financial position of the parties. Even detailed chart about the demands of fee of the minor was given by the Lower Appellate Court, as the minor is studying in a renowned School of Lahore, known as Learning Alliance and copies of the Bank challan of fee paid were duly exhibited in evidence which indicate that son of the petitioner is getting education in the best institution and the amount of Rs,12,000 per month with 25% increase per annum is not harsh due to inflation occurring day by day. During hearing of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced original copy of latest fee bills paid by respondent No,1, which shows that approximate amount of monthly fee of minor respondent No,2 at present is about 9,000 per month. So, I am not inclined to interfere as far as fixation of maintenance of respondent No,2 is concerned. The learned lower Courts below in granting maintenance to respondent No,2 have committed no illegality or irregularity, which does not call for interference in . Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11. For what has been discussed above, this petition is disposed of with the above modification as far as maintenance of respondent No,1 is concerned.