' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that respondents Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit for maintenance on 14-5-2005 claiming Rs,5000 per month per head for two years prior to filing of the same. Written statement was filed by the petitioner/ defendant. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit to the extent of respondent No,5 Mst. Rashida Begum but the same was decreed on 9-10-2006 for the remaining respondents plaintiffs at the rate of Rs,3000 per head per month since the date of institution of the suit till attaining the age of majority for the boys and till their marriage for daughters. Both the petitioner and the respondents filed appeals against the said judgment. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 17-1-2007 while the appeal of the respondents was accepted and the respondents were held entitled to the grant of maintenance from 23-5-2003 instead of 4-5-2005 i.e, the date of the institution of the suit at the rate of Rs,3000 per head per month as fixed by the learned trial Court. Against the said judgment dated 17-1-2007, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that quantum of maintenance determined by both the Courts below has not been determined keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner and has been fixed at a higher rate and the same be reduced to Rs,2000 instead of Rs,3000 per head per month and, therefore, he seeks modification in the impugned judgment.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fully supports the impugned judgment, stating that the learned trial Court had rightly fixed Rs,3000 per head as the children are studying in matric, F.Sc, and B.A. Respectively; that the fixation of Rs,3000 in these times of inflation is reasonable and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned appellate Court and that it is a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction and that the learned lower appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment after fully observing the requirements of law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
5. The learned trial Court had determined the quantum of maintenance as Rs,3000 after proper appreciation of material available on record. The learned appellate Court upheld the order of the A learned trial Court. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments in order to interfere in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.