' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---By order, dated 10-1-2009, learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore had closed the right of defence of the defendant/writ petitioner Muhammad Amin in three claims i,e, (i) suit for dissolution of marriage; (ii) recovery of maintenance allowance and (iii) recovery of dowry articles.
Proceeding further, he had on 25-2-2009 directed payment of interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,2000 each per month to be paid before the 14th of each month.
2. The aforementioned two orders have been challenged by the defendant/petitioner in this writ petition.
3. It was contended that the impugned orders were illegal being opposed to the facts of the case; that wrong address was given in the heading of the suit; that his review application was dismissed illegally and that at all events, the impugned orders were without lawful authority.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioner, I find that the four respondents Mst. Fauzia Ikram and others had filed three claims as aforementioned on 11-10-2008. The defendant/writ petitioner was duly summoned. His address was complete as given in the heading of the plaint. It appears that the defendant/writ petitioner avoided appearance before the Court and he only appeared when a proclamation was issued in daily "Din". The orders, dated 29-10-2008 and 18-11- 2008 may be seen. However, the fact remains that the defendant/writ petitioner appeared on 18-11- 2008 and asked for time to submit written statement. As per section 9 of Family Courts Act, 1964, the defendant was supposed to file his written statement on the first date of his appearance. In any case, on 6-12-2008 he did not file written statement and at his request, last opportunity was granted adjourning the case to 22-12-2008. On 22-12-2008 again he did not submit any written statement and further adjournment was granted for 5-1-2009 on payment of costs of Rs,400. On 5- 1-2009, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matters. Were adjourned to 10-1-2009. On this date, the cases were kept in waiting the whole day long but neither the defendant/writ petitioner himself appeared nor was any written statement filed on his behalf, although his learned counsel was present. At the fag end of the day, learned Judge, Family Court observing the recalcitrant attitude of the defendant/writ petitioner, closed his right of defence and the proceedings were adjourned to 28-1-2009. On 28-1-2009, Mst. Fauzia Ikram plaintiff/respondent No,1 made a statement emphatically denying any chance of her living with the defendant/writ-petitioner as his wife within the limits of God. The petitioner filed an application under section 114 read with section 151, A C.P.C. But it did not find favour with the learned Judge, Family Court. On 25-2-2009, the learned Judge, Family Court passed the orders directing payment of interim maintenance allowance of the three minors @ Rs,2000 each per month. The same was directed to be paid before the 14th of each mohth.
5. The above judicial record would claim presumption of truth. As already noted above, the petitioner had been making all efforts to frustrate progress of the claims filed by the respondent.
He was given last and Qattai last opportunities to file written statement but he showed obduracy.
Under section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, he was supported to submit written statement on the date of his appearance before the Court. He was burdened with costs of Rs,400. The same, too, were not paid by him. He had, therefore, lost his right of audience. The order closing his defence passed on 10-1-2009 was quite justified. Likewise, the order, dated 25-2-2009 passed for payment of interim maintenance allowance in terms of section 17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 was also perfectly legal. It appears that the writ petitioner is fighting legal battle and is not paying a single penny to his minor children. The present writ petition has been filed without any justification. It is, therefore, dismissed in-limine.##TE#
6. A copy of this order shall be sent to Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Buttar, learned Judge, Family Court, seized of the trial for his information.