' KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J.--- This writ petition calls for indulgence of this Court against an interlocutory order passed by the Judge Family Court vide its order dated 14-1-2008 fixing maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,4000 per month.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that his income is not good enough to meet with the fixed expenses.
He is a driver in a company Lemozzen Saudi Arabia Jaddah' where he is receiving 700 Saudi Riyal per month.
3. On pointing out from the respondent's side that this is an interlocutory order against which no writ petition can be maintained, he has referred Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking II, Lahore and another, PLD 1982 Lahore 92 ref. Mian Muhammad Farooq v. Election Tribunal, etc. 1988 MLD 2949 ref. Dur Muhammad Piracha v. Judge, Special Court Banking and others, 1982 CLC 1625 ref. In all the three judgments the issue was in respect of legal infirmity that effected jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal, hence it was held that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 should not have been refused. The exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan against an interlocutory order is justified inter alia only:--
(i) if the order is a non-speaking order and is violative of the basic law,or
(ii) if it is suffering from infirmities effecting jurisdiction of Court or Tribunal, or
(iii) if it settles an issue finally to the extent of the said Court.
' The above parameters do not apply on the judgment impugned before this Court.
4. The impugned order is an interim decision. Maintenance has been fixed at Rs,4,000 per month temporarily which can obviously be modified later. It is not a final order adversely affecting the petitioner. This Court does not want to prejudice the proceedings by commenting upon the claim of the petitioner. However, it is held that the interim order of the kind cannot be interfered with in a writ petition like this.
5. In family matters this Court has unanimity that controversy between the parties effecting their rights even through an interlocutory order deciding such question finally would come within the ambit of case decided. Reference Muhammad Juman v. The State, 2004 MLD 278 ref. The ratio of the above judgment is clear and un-equivocal.
6. In the present case, the issue being provisional which shall be re-visited by the Court at the time of making final decision, there is no question of interference. This Court is furtherortified in his conclusion through judgment reported as University of Health Sciences through Vice-Chancellor v.
Dr. Azeemuddin Zahid and another, 2007 CLC 1055 ref.
7. In the above judgment this Court has held that no writ petition lies against an interlocutory order.
8. The above discussion leaves to the obvious conclusion that the writ petition is pre-mature, hence the same is dismissed.