M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Jabeen Akhtar respondent No. 3 was married to Shahid Pervaiz petitioner according to the Muslims rites 18 years prior to the filing a suit for maintenance by her. Out of the wedlock Noman Shahid and Tania Shahid were born who are presently 17 and 15 years old. Petitioner turned out the respondent No. 3 alongwith minor children in May, 1995 and divorced Mst. Jabeen Akhtar which became effective on 4.9.1995 and according to the respondent No. 3 as alleged in her plaint that the arbitration council awarded Rs. 3,000/-as maintenance during the "Iddat" period and also directed petitioner to pay Rs. 700/- per child per month as their maintenance.
2. According to the respondent No. 3/plamtiff, petitioner/defendant left the country and remained abroad for 13 years. Respondent No. 3 end her 2 minor children namely Noman Shahid and Mst. Tania Shahid respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed a suit for maintenance allowance in the Court of learned Judge Family Court,. Rawalpindi in which petitioner was directed vide order dated 26.3.2008 to pay interim. Maintenance at the rate of' Rs.
1,000/- per month before 14th of each month but despite availing 5 opportunities petitioner did not pay even a single penny in obedience to the aforesaid order and even on, 26.4.2008 when the impugned order was passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi it is mentioned in his judgment that petitioner was not ready to pay interim maintenance fixed by the Court. Resultantly, the learned Judge Family Court closed the right of defence of the petitioner. He however, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was divorced on 4.9.1995 whereas the present suit was filed on 20.11.2007 and thus the claim of respondent No. 3 for "Iddat" period maintenance has become time-barred and also fixed Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent Nos.4 and 5 each as their maintenance allowance from the institution of the suit till their entitlement. The learned Family Judge also directed that the maintenance shall also increase at the rate of Rs. 10 % per annum.
3. The petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi. However, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 being aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, which was finally heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi who vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.2008 accepted the same holding that the maintenance allowance of Rs 2,000/- per month for 2 teenager is insufficient and thus he enhanced the said amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- for each child with the further direction that the minors would be entitled to recover maintenance allowance for six years prior to the institution of the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi erred in enhancing the amount of monthly maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- for each child/respondents Nos.4 and 5. He further submits that petitioner has to maintain the other family members and his sources are not so sufficient to pay maintenance to respondents Nos.4 and 5 at such a higher rate.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the,petitioner has not paid any maintenance to his minor children from his first were since desertion alongwith their mother so much so he has not even obeyed the order passed by the learned Judge Family Court on 26.3.2008 directing to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for each child before 14th of each month and he availed 5 opportunities for making payment and even on the date when the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi by closing petitioner defence. He was not willing to make payment of the interim maintenance as ordered by the learned Judge Family Court. The learned rightly closed the defence of the petitioner and after recording the statement of Mst. Jabeen Akhtar as PW.1 decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008. Petitioner has not even challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi. There is no cavil with the proposition that it is the duty of the father to maintain his children and thus no exception can be taken from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi minor (respondents Nos.4 and 5) and similarly the learned Additional District Judge rightly refused the maintenance of the "Iddaf' period to respondent No. 3 as the said claim was beyond 6 years and the learned Appellate Court has granted maintenance for the last 6 years prior to the institution of suit by the minors/respondents Nos.4 and 5 which is permissible under the law. The direction of the learned Judge Family Court that the maintenance will increase at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum is also maintained.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. .