' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This constitutional petition is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No,3 against the judgment and decree dated 26-6-2009 was partially accepted.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that inter alia the petitioner is the minor-son of respondent No,3, who through his mother filed a suit for recovery of maintenance. The said suit was resisted, issues framed, evidence led, where after the trial Court, seized of the matter, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs,3000 per month with annual increase of 10% per annum, vide its judgment and decree dated 26-6-2009. Aggrieved, respondent No,3 filed an appeal which was partially accepted by the first appellate Court and the maintenance was reduced to Rs,1500 per month, vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition, has been perused.
4. There can be no escape from the fact that the petitioner is admittedly the son of respondent No,3 who being father is bound by law IA to maintain his child. The petitioner is about 6/7 years of age and is currently school going. The petitioner's mother is a school teacher, which fact is also admitted by the opposite side. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent No,3 is engaged in a business and maintenance at the rate of Rs,10,000 per month was claimed. The Family Court, seized of the matted, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs,3000 per month keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties and the evidence on record. Respondent No,3 had attempted to avoid payment of maintenance relying on a document allegedly executed between the parties pertaining to the custody of the petitioner. Both Courts below have correctly held that the said document is not binding. Incidentally, in the written statement, no defence against payment of maintenance was taken. The appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009, reduced the maintenance from Rs,3,000 to Rs,1,500 per month with 10% annual increase. No reason whatsoever is disclosed in the impugned judgment reducing the maintenance of the minor-petitioner. The finding of the Family Court appears to be supported by cogent reasons and based on material evidence on the record. It has also been noted that no documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent to show his income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009 is not sustainable in law, consequently the same is set aside, as a consequence whereof the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 26-6-2009 shall now hold the field.
5. In the above terms.