KH. FAR000 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 1.4.1.2008 fixing maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- 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 Jeddah' where he is receiving 700 Saudi Rival 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 (PLD 1982 Lahore 92) ref: "Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and another", (N.L.R 1988 Civil 599) ref: "Mian Muhammad Farooq v. Election Tribunal, etc." and (1982 C.L.0 1625) ref: "Dur Muhammad Piracha v. Judge, Special Court Banking and others". In all the three judgments the issue was in respect of legal infirmity that affected 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 affecting jurisdiction of Court or Tribunal, or (i.e) if it settles an issue finally to the extent of the said Court.
The above parameters does 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 effecting '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 have unanimity that controversy between the parties affecting their rights even through an interlocutory orders deciding such question finally would come within the ambit of case decided. Reference (2004 M.L.D 278) re:- "Muhammad Juman v. The State". 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 further fortified in his conclusion through, judgment reported as 2007 C.L.0 1055 ref: "Univerity of Health Sciences through Vice Chancellor v. Dr. Azeemuddin Zahid and another".
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-rnature, hence the same is dismissd.