' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- The matrimonial life of the petitioner Altaf Hussain and Mst. Amir Bibi respondent No,2 after having sustained for about 15 years unfortunately ended in divorce on 9-4- 2001. During the period of their matrimony three children namely Khawar Shahzad Tehmina Altaf and Dilawar Shahzad were born to the spouses. The respondent Amir Bibi filed a suit for past and future maintenance for herself as well as the said three children at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month for each of the plaintiffs.
2. The suit to the extent of Mst. Amir Bibi and eldest son Khawar Shahzad was dismissed on the ground that the former had been divorced by the writ petitioner while Khawar Shahzad had attained the age of majority and was not depended upon the parents for maintenance. The claim of maintenance in favour of Tehmina Shahzad and Dilawar Shahzad was allowed at the rate of Rs,800 per month for each of them.
3. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Court both the parties preferred appeals, which were decided by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment, dated 7-5-2008. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed while the one filed by Mst. Amir Bibi was partly allowed only to the extent that yearly increase of Rs,100 shall be incorporated in the monthly allowance allowed to the minor children.
4. The writ jurisdiction can neither be invoked as a substitute for the right of appeal nor to make the law redundant. The bar against appeal where the maintenance allowance is not more than Rs,1000 per month is not without logic. Among other reasons, it also intends to put an end to the matters of meagre maintenance allowance and also to save the claimants from rigours of litigation who are already hard pressed for meeting the basic needs. It can only be exercised to serve the ends of justice or to avert the illegalities or material irregularities causing grave, injustice.
5. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner i,e, the judgment-debtor before the learned Additional District Judge was barred under section 14(2) of the Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for the simple reason that the rate of maintenance allowance was less than 1000 per month. This bar is, however, not operative against a decree-holder dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance allowance as laid down in the case of Mst. Neelam Nosheen and others v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan and others 2002 M LD 784 and Saeeda Alia v. Syed Ghulam Mursalin Naqvi and another 2004 M LD 306. That being so the appeal of the respondent-decree-holder was rightly allowed. However, even after the acceptance of the appeal of the respondents the same remains less than 1000 per month. From that point of view this writ petition on behalf of the judgment-debtor is not maintainable because there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment, nor it suffers from any jurisdictional defect. The same was passed upon the evidence and IE proper appreciation of the facts and circumstance.
5. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed in limine.