1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Family Court while dissolving marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No,2 by way of "Khula" has neither given direction for the restoration of "Haq Mehar" i,e, ornament weighing about 17 Tolas of gold nor has framed any issue in that regard. He further contends that in its interim order the Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs,10,000 per month to the respondent No,2, as maintenance for the baby of one and half years, which according to him, is exorbitant and beyond the capacity of the petitioner.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 contends that the respondent No,2 had not received the alleged ornaments and, therefore, such controversial question can be decided only on the basis of evidence by the trial Court. She further contends that maintenance of baby at the rate of Rs,10,000 per month is quite reasonable. However, according to her, that is not the final order and the Family Court can change it on the basis of evidence which might come before it. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 relying upon the cases of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi v. The Province of Sindh, reported in 1996 SCM R 1165 and Saqib Mazhar v. Judge, Family Court, Wazirabad, reported in 2008 CLC 607 (Lahore), contends that the interim order passed by a Family Court is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in many matters the Lahore High Court has modified interim orders of maintenance, indirectly indicating that the Court was of the opinion that interim orders of the Family Courts were amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
4. 'Undoubtedly, precedents of Lahore High Court have a persuasive value for this and others Courts of the Province of Sindh. According to Article 189 of the Constitution, any decision of the Supreme Court deciding a question of law or enunciating a principle of law is binding upon all other Courts in Pakistan and according to Article 201 (ibid) a decision of a High Court deciding a question of law or enunciating a principle of law is binding on all Courts subordinate to it. This shows that binding nature of a decision of a superior Court is only to the extent of question or principle of law decided or enunciated by it.
5. ' In the case of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi v. The Province of Sindh, the Supreme Court, after elaborately discussing provision regarding unappealable interlocutory orders existing in various statutes, concluded that unappealable interlocutory orders could not be challenged in constitutional petition and the party will have to wait till passing of the final order, when it can also challenge the interim orders in the appeal filed against final orders.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would be satisfied, if he is permitted to approach the trial Court for the modification of the interim order of maintenance and for framing issue. Regarding the benefits received by the respondent No,2 from the petitioner. In this regard it may be observed that no permission is required for approaching the trial Court, particularly when the matter is still subjudice before it. The petitioner can always make reasonable requests to the trial Court, which shall be considered by it on merits.
7. ' With the above observations, the petition is disposed of as not maintainable.