S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. - The learned Judge, Family Court, Shakargarh, District Narowal on a family suit brought by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and their mother (Mst. Waqar-un-Nisa) granted tire following relief after framing issues and recording evidence vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.2008:- ".... The suit for the maintenance allowance to the extent of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 is decreed and fixed Rs. 5,000/- per minor, per mensum. It shall start running from the date of institution of the suit., It shall last till their marriages. The whole maintenance allowance of the minors will be subject to the 10% annual increase, and enhancement of maintenance allowance with increasing expenditure if prayed. The suit to the extent of plaintiff No. 1 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
2. Both the parties filed appeals, which were, however, dismissed by Rana Riaz Ahmad Khan, learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2008.
3. The above-mentioned concurrent judgments/decrees dated 15.7.2008 and 4.12.2008 have been challenged by the writ petitioner/judgment-debtor only, through the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner attempted to argue that the relief granted to the extent of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (Aimen Zafar and Romaisa Zafar) was beyond the scope of prayer made in the suit. He drew my attention to para 5 of the plaint and submitted that, the prayer clause only be contrude to the effect that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had claimed Rs. 3,333/- per head per month.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 tried to argue that the rate of maintenance granted was rather half of the one claimed in the plaint. According to him, the rate of. Maintenance claimed per head was Rs. 10,000/- per month.
6. After-, hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties and going through the record, I find that both the learned counsel were mis-construing the averment made in para 5 and the prayer clause, of the plaint. In para 5 of the plaint, it was averred that the expenses on account of school- fee, tuition-fee and fee of the Qari were Rs. 5,100/- per month. In other words, the expenses of maintenance were Rs. 2,550/- per head qua respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein (plaintiffs. Nos. 2 and 3 in plaint). Further, the expenses on uniform, raiment and lodging, were Rs. 2,000/- per head. In other words, the expenses as could be construed from the averments made in the plaint , for respondents Nos, .3 and 4 were Rs. 2,550/- plus Rs. 2,000/- = Rs. 4,550/- per head. The learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the sub to the extent of Mst. Waqar-uh-Nisa (mother of respondents Nos. 3 and 4). However, he decreed the suit regarding maintenance to the extent of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3) at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per head. In appeal, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court on 15.7.2008 was upheld vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2008. I further find that the suit to the extent of claim of the previous four years' maintenance, was also declined by the two Courts below. The petitioner, in his own way is still not satisfied.
7. While granting decree in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the Courts below duly brought into consideration the social status and financial resources of the writ petitioner. Their judgments were based on evidence. The rate of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month were not excessive in any manner. Although the provisions of C.P.C. Strict sensu did not apply in family matters except Sections 10 and 11 thereof, yet a Court was always competent to mould the relief keeping in view the circumstances of each case. In other words, a Court is always competent to grant relief as might be thought just and proper to the same extent, as if it had been asked for.
8. As a result, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below particularly when there is no misreading and nonreading of the pleadings or evidence on record. The. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.