' KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J.-This writ petition calls for interference of this Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 8-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, through which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 4-4-2007, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Gujrat whereby she decreed the suit of respondent No,l in the following terms:-
(a) That the plaintiff is entitled to receive maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,3000 from the date of divorce of her mother 15-10-2004 onward and for the future till he attains majority. This rate of maintenance will increase by 10 per cent after every year from the date of decree and defendant will be entitled to deduct maintenance already paid by him during the pendency of the suit.
2. Petitioner's counsel contends that the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge is as a result of nonreading and misreading of evidence, hence writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 'Pakistan, 1973, may be invoked and the judgment and decree impugned may be set aside. On merits, it is claimed that the petitioner does not have any known source of income, hence he is not in a position to pay the maintenance etc.
3. Respondent's counsel says that the petitioner has worked at Saudi Arabia for eight years besides he is owner of agricultural land at Bahawal Nagar. Even otherwise this Court in a judgment reported as 2005 CLR 521 re: "Aurangzeb v. Mst. Banni Begum and others" has held that the father is liable to pay the maintenance and his claim of having no source cannot help.
4. Responsibility of paying the maintenance allowance to the family is on father and he should shoulder the same using his ability, efforts and means. There is, therefore, no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The learned trial Court after evaluation of all the law and facts of the case correctly decreed the suit of respondent No,l as the petitioner had failed to prove his claim.
6. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned two Courts below are very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Moreover, no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees in terms of invocation of the powers in exercise of a writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by this Court.
7. Secondly, by not providing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate forum in a family suit, the law clearly contemplates culmination of the proceedings. The intention of law cannot be defeated by entertaining and ruling upon the contentions issues between the parties in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Dismissed.