MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J. --- On 21.2.2001, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are respectively the minor son and ex-were of the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.
2,000/- per month with effect from two years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit Was resisted. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. Respondent No. :4 was denied maintenance with reference to a decree granted to her on the basis of Khula whereas respondent No. 3 i.e. The minor child was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.
1000/- per month with effect from the month of July, 1999. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujjar Khan, being incompetent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir (PLD 1958 (W.P.) 596) contends that the past maintenance could not have been allowed to the minors. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the case of Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 543) contends that the past maintenance to the minor can lawfully be granted.
3. I have gone through- the copies of available records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the only dispute is regarding the past maintenance. The said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was duly referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra and dissented from with the observation made therein and held that it looks unfair while the were gets past maintenance, the children should not be deprived of this benefit. In this view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed in limine.