' ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---In a family suit brought by respondent No,1 (Fatima minor) and his mother Mst. Sakina Bibi for recovery of maintenance allowance, the learned Judge, Family Court after framing issues and recording evidence, held that the defendant/ petitioner Muhammad Naseer was earning Rs,10.000 per month. He, therefore, granted maintenance allowance to each plaintiff at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month.To the extent of minor plaintiff No,1 (Fatima), she was held entitled to recover fixed maintenance allowance from the defendant/petitioner till attaining the age of puberty or marriage whichever earlier 20% annual increase was allowed from the date of institution of the suit. Plaintiff No,2 Mst. Sakina Bibi was held entitled to recover fixed maintenance allowance till her "Iddat" period of three months. The suit was accordingly decreed.
2. Muhammad Naseer writ petitioner preferred appeal only to the extent of Fatima minor did not challenge the judgment/decree rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court to the extent of Mst.
Sakina Bibi. The learned District Judge, Sialkot held that no appeal lay against the judgment and decree for maintenance of Rs,1000 or less. Consequently, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal as being incompetent.
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that his appeal before the learned District Judge was competent because the same was filed against the judgment/decree which was for Rs,1000 plus Rs,1000 = Rs,2000. According to him, although he had not challenged the decree to the extent of Mst. Sakina Bibi yet the appeal was competent and the petitioner was entitled to get a decision on merits. He relied on Khawaj Muhammad v. District Judge, Mansehra and others (1999 M LD 2723).
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties and going through the record, I hold that the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. He himself conceptually accepted the judgment/decree to the extent of Mst. Sakina Bibi. Leaving her out of the arena in the Memorandum of Appeal, he challenged the decree only to the extent of Fatima minor.
It could, therefore, be reasonably construed that he had challenged the decree only to the extent C of grant of maintenance allowance of Rs,1000. This is what can be seen from the relief claimed in the Memo. Of Appeal. Had he challenged the entire decree., his appeal would have been competent because section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 speaks of the decree in toto and not as to the amount per head. In the present case, the decree in toto was for Rs,2000 being for Rs,1000 per head. The petitioner felt satisfied as to the grant of maintenance in favour of Mst. Sakina Bibi/ plaintiff No,2. In the writ petition too, Mst. Sakina Bibi was not impleaded as party. He continued to be a proper party, if not necessary party, all along.
5. The argument that the increase at the rate of Rs,20% per year was excessive, qua respondent No,1, is misconceived. The maintenance allowance was granted only at rate of Rs,1000 per month and keeping in view the inflationary trends and price hikes, 20% increase was by no stretch of imagination excessive. Irrespective of the financial position of the father (petitioner), whether tight or easy, he remains responsible for providing maintenance to his children. The appeal which was a remedy of right was rendered by the petitioner himself is incompetent by challenging the same partly, how could then a writ petition be maintained was a question hard to be answered by the petitioner. Reliance on Khawaj Muhammad v. District Judge, Mansehra and others (1999 M LD 2723) was misplaced as it was not an apt simile.
6. For all the above reasons, I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable at all. The same, therefore, dismissed as such.