1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.--- This constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner Muhammad Amir Khan, through his Advocates, namely Messrs Safia Sultana and Muhammad Abdul Rasheed, the petitioner and his counsel are called, but they are absent.
2. ' I have gone through the memo. Of petition as well as impugned orders passed by the learned 1st Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (Central) in Family Case No,352 of 2006 dated 17-7-2007 and order of IInd Additional Judge (Central) in Family Appeal No,77 of 2007.
3. ' The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was married with the respondent at Karachi on 13-11-1996, in accordance with Muslim Family Law, against the dower amount of Rs,25,000. The marriage between the spouses had broken on 18-6-2005. The petitioner has filed a copy of divorce deed as Annexure "P/4" at page No,93 of the Court file. He has filed the copy of intimation under section 7(I) of the Family Courts Act, sent to the Chairman, Punchayat Committee, Karachi (Central) as Annexure "P/4-A" to the petition, which is at page No,97 of the Court file. However, there is no confirmation certificate on record regarding confirmation of the divorce. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned 1st Civil and Family Judge passed an order under section 17-A of Family Court (Amended) Ordinance, 2002. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:-- "Admittedly the defendant is the father of three minors sons who are in the custody of plaintiff and as a father defendant is bound to pay maintenance to his minor children, I therefore, after looking the status of parties allow the interim maintenance of each child at the rate of Rs,1,000 p.m. From February, 2007 till further order. Total maintenance of three minors is Rs,3,000 p.m. The defendant is directed to deposit total Rs,3,000 in the office of Nazir which the defence of defendant struck off.
4. The instant application disposed of."
5. ' The said order was not complied with by the petitioner. The Advocate for the respondent had moved an application on 15-2-2007, for striking off the defence of the petitioner as the petitioner had failed to comply with the orders of the Court. On 17-7-2007, the petitioner had moved an application in the trial Court for permission to pay the balance amount of maintenance in instalments of Rs,6,000 p.m. The trial Court had rejected the application by order, dated 17-7-2007, on the ground that there is no provision in the family law for payment in instalments. The trial Court on 17-7-2007 had struck off the defence of the petitioner, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:--- "By this order I dispose of application under section 17-A. Heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the R&P of the case. The plaintiff has filed the suit for dower amount and maintenance. On 27-1-2007 application under section 17-A was allowed and defendant was directed to pay interim maintenance of each child @ Rs,1,000 p.m. Total 3,000 for three children from February, .2007 at the office of Nazir of the Court on or before 14th of each month. The defendant has not complied the order of the Court and failed to deposit interim maintenance of minors. I, in the light of above struck off the defence of the defendant and decree the prayer of the plaintiff regarding maintenance of three minors. Let the decree be prepared."
6. ' Against this order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 7-12-2007. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:--- "From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the order for interim maintenance was passed on 17- 7-2007, by the Court of 1st Civil and Family Judge, Karachi Central, while the instant appeal under section 14 of Family Courts Act was moved on 6-11-2007. The Advocate for the appellant has contended that the application for the certified copies of the order and decree, dated 20-7-2007 was moved by appellant Court in time, which was issued on 17-7-2002 and on 23-7-2007. The certified copy of the decree was also issued lately on 4-10-2007. If suppose the certified copy of the decree was issued to the appellant so late i,e, on 4-10-2007, then why he moved appeal under section 14 of Family Courts Act so late on 6-11-2007 i,e, after the lapse of more than one month. The appellant had given sufficient time under the law to file the appeal in time, but he was failed to take the benefit of such opportunities and the reason/explanation given by him in this respect were not cogent and inspiring confidence, even cannot stand on their own legs, as it was also the duty of the opponent to remain vigilant during the proceeding of the Court in order to pursue his cause, as equity helps the vigilant and not the careless, negligent, indolent and those who sleep over their rights are not entitled to claim their rights. The maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus acquit as subvenit applies".... Equity helps the wakeful, not the slumbering ... Harms' ."
7. ' As per section 152 of C.P.C., 30 days time is given for filing the appeal from the date of passing the order.
8. ' In the light of above, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable under the law, with no order as to costs.
9. ' This petition is pending in this Court since 27-2-2008. Neither the petitioner nor his Advocate have appeared in Court today though called repeatedly. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter as the petition was presented on 27-2-2008, it was fixed in Court for the first time on 11-4-2008, when the Advocate for the petitioner had sought time to comply with the office objections, thereafter, it was fixed on 28-8-2008, when the matter was discharged and finally, it was fixed for today when no one is present. It appears that the petitioner and his counsel have lost interest in the case.
10. ' The petition has no merits, I am not inclined to interfere into the impugned orders of the Courts below. The petition is dismissed in limine.