Pakistan Case Law← Search
2010 YLR 1113

GHULAM DASTAGEER vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GOJRA, TOBA TEK

Citation2010 YLR 1113
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,14593 of 2009
Date2010-01-28
Judge(s)Sh. Azmat Saeed
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

'SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This is an application on behalf of respondents seeking release of amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of this Court's order dated 2-7-2009. There is a decree in favour of the respondents. Liability deposited is not disputed. Consequently, this application is allowed and the office is directed to release the amount to the respondents/ decree holders in accordance with law. MAIN CASE

2. This writ petition has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree dated 17-6-2009 whereby the appeal filed by the private respondents 2 to 6 (wife and minors/children was partially accepted. Respondents 2-6 filed a suit inter alia for dowry articles and maintenance. Suit was resisted, issues were framed and the parties led their respective evidence, thereafter, the learned Judge of the Family Court seized of the matter, granted decree with reference to dowry articles and also awarded maintenance to respondent No,2 @ Rs,2,000 per month until the completion of Iddat period and further awarded maintenance t Rs,1,000 per month each in favour of minors respondents 4 to 6. Being aggrieved, respondents 3 to 6 filed an appeal, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 17-6-2009 whereby maintenance was enhanced to Rs,1,500 per month.

3. Heard. Record perused. There is no dispute with regard to the dowry articles or maintenance awarded to respondent No,2. Learned counsel for the petitioner' contends that the maintenance awarded to the minors is excessive, should be reduced B to Rs,1,000 per month per child as was granted by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the contentions being raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the suit maintenance had been claimed @ Rs,2,000 but instead the appellate Court has only awarded Rs,1,500 per month per child. Petitioner is father of the minor and is bound to maintain his children. Maintenance in question does not appear to be excessive as the said amount would barely cover the expenses of the children. The amount awarded is neither perverse nor fanciful. No illegality and jurisdictional defect have been pointed out C by the learned counsel so as to warrant interference by this Court with the judgment and decree impugned with the result that this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed accordingly.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search