'CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1/plaintiff No,l was married to the petitioner/defendant on 11-1-2001 according to the Muslim rites. Out of this wedlock, two sons and two daughters were born who are alive and in the custody of respondent No,l who is the real mother of minors. About three years before the filing of suit, the petitioner/defendant turned the respondent No,l out of his house along with minors after giving her severe beating, since then the respondents Nos.l, 3 to 4 had been putting up with the parents of respondent No,l who have been providing maintenance and other livelihood of life and the petitioner has not paid any amount to the respondents on account of maintenance.
2. The suit was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs and out of the pleadings following issues were framed:- 'Issues
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get maintenance allowance from the defendant, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (1-A) Whether the defendant is entitled to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff No,l is entitled to recover dower amount as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring this suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have not come into the Court with clean hands? OPD Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(6) Relief.
3. The parties adduced their evidence and on 2-7-2009, the learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of maintenance allowance in the following terms: ~ "Suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of maintenance allowance is hereby decreed to the effect that plaintiff No,1 is not entitled to recover any maintenance allowance from the defendant rather will be entitled only when she will rehabilitate in the defendant's house whereas, plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to recover their maintenance allowance from the defendant at the rate of Rs,1500 per month each from August, 2008 till their marriage and plaintiffs Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to recover their maintenance allowance from the defendant at the rate of Rs,1500 per month each from August, 2008 till their age of majority. However, maintenance allowance of the minors will be enhanced 10% annually which will take effect from August, 2010. Further claims of the plaintiff for recovery of dower amount and seven totals gold ornaments are hereby dismissed due to want of cogent evidence."
4. The petitioner filed an appeal and on 10-9-2009, the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad decided the appeal as under:- "So the crux of the above discussion is that quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge Family Court being harsh and excessive is not sustainable. It is accordingly modified to the tune of Rs, 1000 per month for respondents/ plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 with annual increase of Rs,10% as declared by the learned Judge Family Court. Resultantly, the appeal stands accepted.
The decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court is modified to the extent of maintenance allowance of respondents Nos.2 to 5 at the rate of Rs,1000 per month w.e.f, August, 2008 till the marriage of respondents/plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and majority of 4 and 5 with annual increase of 10% hence this writ petition. "
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his monthly income is Rs,4000 and Rs,1000 per month each is excessive amount, the petitioner is unable to pay the same because he does not have any other source of income except his salary which is Rs,4000 per month. The petitioner further contends that minor plaintiff No,3, namely, Amna Shehzadi is adopted child who is not entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. The
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Rs,1000 is a petty amount and in the prevailing circumstances, survival is not possible with such a meagre amount of Rs,1000 per month as maintenance, so in the impugned judgment and decree no interference is called for. So far as the rights of an adopted child are concerned, it is correct that the adopted child is not entitled to inherit from the estate of a person who adopts such child but there is no such bar in law that an adopted child is not entitled to receive maintenance from the person who adopts him particularly when the petitioner himself pleads that he is ready to pay maintenance to the adopted child if the custody of adopted child is handed over to him.
8. In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned F judgment. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed in limine.