1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---It is the case of the petitioner that old Family Suit No, 60 of 2007 new No,215 of 2007 for recovery of maintenance, dower amount, dowry articles and delivery expenses was filed before the IXth Civil/Family Judge and Judicial Magistrate with the following prayers:--
(a) That, this honourable Court may be pleased to direct the defendant to pay maintenance to the plaintiff from 2-1-1998 at the rate of Rs.2000 per month so also for future at same rate with enhancement of 10% per annum.
(b) To direct the defendant to pay the maintenance for minors at the rate of Rs.1500 each per month from 2-1-1998 for Syed Ehsan Iqbal and from 8-4-1998 for baby Noor Afshan Rizvi till they attain age of majority with enhancement of 10% per annum.
(c) To direct the defendant to pay Rs.21000 as dower amount to the plaintiff.
(d) That, this honourable Court may be pleased to direct the defendant to pay the delivery expenses for Syed Noor Afshan born on 8-4-1998 at Rs. 15,439 to the plaintiff including medical expenses.
2. 2003 To direct the defendant to pay educational expenses of minor Ehsan from January, 1999 to January, 2007 Rs.29040, (Rs.250 from 1999 to 2003 and from 2004 to 2005 at Rs.300 and since 2006 till to date Rs.350). Tuition fee from 1999 to 2006 at Rs.75600 at the rate of Rs.600 per month from 1999 to 2000 and from 2001 to and upto date at the rate of Rs.850 per month, fare/travelling charges from 1999 to 2006 amounting toRs. 1,11,600 (Rs.1200 per month from 1999 to 2003 and Rs.1500 per month from 2004 till today.
3. ' To direct the defendant to pay educational expenses of minor Noor Afshan from 2003 to 2006 amount to Rs.29,100 from 2003 Rs.500 per month, for 2004 Rs.550 per month and from 2005 till todate Rs.650 per month and tuition fees of baby from 2003 to January, 2006 at Rs.44,400 (from 2003 to 2004 Rs.650 per month and from 2005 till todate Rs.800 per month), Fare charges total Rs.68,400 (from 2002 to 2006 at rate of Rs. 1200 per month and from 2003 till today Rs.1500 per month).
(e) To direct the defendant to return the dowry articles worth Rs.1,50,000 including gold ornaments, valuable clothes, singer sewing machine, fridge, Iron, T.V. Double bed, show case and Almirah etc., such list was prepared at the time of Nikah in presence of witnesses OR in alternate to pay the value of the dowry articles worth Rs. 1,50,000.
(f) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper may please be awarded to the plaintiff.
4. ' In such Family suit, application under section 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was also filed for payment of interim maintenance, which application was allowed by the Family Court in term of its Order, dated 19-9-2007, operative part whereof read as under:- "I have carefully perused the case file and heard both sides anxiously and of the view that issue over divorce of plaintiff and her entitlement for claiming maintenance required adjudication, however, the maintenance of children is obligatory upon father, therefore, I hereby allowed Rs.2000 to each child of plaintiff as interim maintenance which is to be deposited in Nazir Office in first week of every Calendar month for October, 2007 till decision in suit failing which defence of defendant will be struke off, plaintiff is presently is not entitled for interim maintenance. This order has got no impact over final decision in the suit."
5. ' The petitioner contends that after passing of the above Order, the defendant, respondent herein regularly paid the maintenance amount of the children from October, 2007 up to February, 2008 and thereafter discontinued to pay the same on account of dismissal of the Family Suit for non- prosecution on 11-3-2008. Restoration application was made in the Family Suit on or about 18-3- 2008 which application was allowed by the Family Court in terms of its order, dated 16-1-2009 whereby the Family suit was resorted to its original position.
6. ' After restoration of the Family Suit to its original number and the fact that the respondent despite order dated 19-9-2007, failed to make the payment of the maintenance from March, 2008 onwards moved fresh application for payment of the maintenance of the children as was ordered earlier which application was dismissed by the Family Court by observing that, "during pendency of this application the present suit was not in operation therefore the question of payment" does not arise.
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that merely on account of dismissal of the Family Suit for non- prosecution did not wash away the Order of the Family Court passed on 19-9-2007 and that it remained in the field till the date of restoration of the Family Suit.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
9. The impugned order stating that the petitioner is not entitled for the maintenance for the period when the suit remained dismissed is not correct when it would be compared with the fact that the Family Court restored the Family Suit to its "original position" which would mean that all the orders which had been passed earlier in the Family Suit, interim or otherwise also restored to such original position. Therefore, when the Family Suit was restored to its original position, it was incumbent upon the Family Court to have ordered the payment of arrears of the maintenance of the two minor children as ordered earlier. Even otherwise the right of maintenance is a natural right of the minor children and the parent (father) cannot be allowed under any circumstances to be negligent about it and when such negligence is brought to the notice of the Court, it becomes the prime responsibility of the Court that such maintenance is ordered and any slackness on the part of the father is dealt with strictly as it is the legal and moral duty of the father of minor children to keep maintaining them he being the natural guardian till they attain the age of majority. No excuse, big or small can absolve the father from his duty of maintaining his minor children which duty has been ordained on him through divine revelation of Allah Almighty.
10. Under the circumstances the Impugned Order, dated 19-2-2009 is set aside whereby the right of maintenance of the children, though for a limited period was put at peril because of the act of the Court which cannot be allowed to be sustained in any circumstances. The respondent is directed to deposit all the arrears of the maintenance of the two children up to date within a period of 15 days from today, failing which writ of attachment of his house and/or property, both movable and immovable shall follow.
11. ' It may be noted that on the last date of hearing the matter was adjourned for today as on that day the respondent No,l despite service was called absent and it was ordered that intimation notice be issued to him with the directions that if he fails to appear in Court today and defend his interest, present petition would be heard and decided ex parte. The Bailiff's report shows that notice was issued with the above directions to the respondent, which notice was not received and it was informed by the persons available at the address of the respondent No, 1 that he is away at Karachi with regard to his business. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner was heard and the order was passed.
12. ' The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
13. ' This listed application is also disposed of.