' ASAD MUNIR. J.---The petitioner is aggrieved by the learned Judge Family Court's orders dated 7- 10-2009 and 24-11-2009, affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge's judgment and decree dated 9-3-2010, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs,2000 to Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, aged 10 years, 9 years and 6 years, respectively, who are the minor grandsons of the petitioner, being the sons of petitioner's son, respondent No,5 and his daughter- in-law, respondent No. 1.
2. Statedly, the marriage between respondent No,5 and respondent No,1, was solemnized on 5-11- 2000 whereafter the couple lived together in the petitioner's house in Sialkot till 26-7-2005 when respondent No,5 left for Saudi Arabia where he is still living. However, respondent No,1 continued living in the petitioner's house in Sialkot till 4-4-2009 when her relations with her in-laws became so strained that she along with her children, respondents Nos. 2 to 4, left the house of the petitioner and shifted to Lahore to live with her parents. On 1-5-2009, the petitioner along with respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are said to have deceitfully taken away the minors tram Lahore to the petitioner's house in Sialkot.
' However, when the minors were not returned to respondent No.1, she filed a habeas corpus petition (Crl. Misc.No,549/H/2009) wherein an order was passed by this Court for the production of the minors who were produced by the petitioner on 6-5-2009 when their custody was handed over to respondent No, 1 .
3. It appears that the differences between the parties became acute with the result that on 1-6- 2009 respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a composite suit against respondent No,5 and the petitioner for the recovery of maintenance and for the recovery of respondent No,1 's dowry articles and personal property which were valued at Rs,706,500 and Rs,9,86,000, respectively. The suit was accompanied by an application under section 17A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, for the fixation of interim monthly maintenance of Rs,30,000. On 1-6-2009, the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, issued notices to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for 13-6-2009 but none appeared whereafter on 13-6-2009 substituted service of notice through proclamation in the newspaper was ordered for 2-7-2009 on which date appearance was entered on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 27-7- 2009 ex parte proceedings were ordered against respondent No,5 for non-appearance. On 18-9- 2009, a reply was filed by the petitioner in response to respondents Nos. 1 to 4's application for fixation of interim maintenance. In his reply, the petitioner disputed his liability to pay maintenance as paternal grand father in the presence of the father, respondent No,5, who was in Saudi Arabia.
After hearing arguments as to the liability of the petitioner to pay interim maintenance, the learned Family Judge vide order dated 7-10-2009 found that the petitioner was liable to maintain the minors as their father was abroad and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs,2000 to each of the three minors with effect from the date of filing of the application i,e, 1-6-2009 .And to pay the future interim maintenance at the same rate on or before 14th of every succeeding month. On 29-10-2009, petitioner's counsel sought adjournment on the ground. That the petitioner was ill and made a statement that the interim maintenance allowance will be paid on the next date of hearing fixed for 14-11-2009 when, however, the petitioner along with his counsel appeared and admitted the non-payment of the interim maintenance with the undertaking that it would be paid on the next date of hearing and in acknowledgement of his undertaking, the petitioner affixed his thumb impression on the order sheet dated 6-11-2009 whereafter the learned Judge Family Court adjourned the case to 14-11-2009 and'gave final opportunity to the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance allowance. On 14-11-2009, no proceedings could take place as the learned Judge Family Court was on leave and the case was adjourned to 17-11-2009 when again the case was adjourned at the joint request of the counsel to 20-11-2009 along with the order for payment of interim maintenance. On 20-11-2009, the case was adjourned to 24-11-2009 due to lawyers strike.
The interim maintenance, having not been paid on 24-11-2009, the learned Judge Family Court struck off the right of defense of the petitioner and also decreed the suit under section 17A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, to the extent of allowing monthly maintenance of Rs,2000 to each of three minors, respondents Nos.2 to 4, with effect from date of institution of the suit i,e, 1-6- 2009 till their majority along with 10% annual increment. Against the learned Judge Family Court's order dated 24-11-2009, an appeal was filed which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through his judgment and decree dated 9-3-2010.
4. While challenging the orders/judgments and decrees of the learned courts below, it has been contended that the petitioner, being the paternal grand father of the minors, is not liable to pay any maintenance as it is the minors' father, respondent No,5, who is liable and his mere absence from Pakistan cannot pass on the liability to the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 543). It is further pleaded that the petitioner, being 70 years old, has no source of income and receives no money from his son, respondent No,5, who is jobless in Saudi Arabia.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4 has lent his full support to the impugned judgments and decrees and has argued that the, petitioner, being the paternal grand father of the minors, is liable in the absence of the father who has failed or is unable to maintain his children. In support, the learned counsel has referred to Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Ashfaq and others (1994 CLC 444), Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lyallpur and others (PLD 1976 Lahore 930) and Abdullah v. Jawaria Aslam and 2 others (2004 YLR 616). Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner never challenged the Judge Family Court order dated 7-10-2010 for interim maintenance and in fact accepted it and gave an undertaking before the Judge Family Court to pay the interim maintenance and also sought several adjournments to pay the same. The case of Mavra Arshad v. Sheikh Ehsan Ghani (2005 SCMR 1293) has been cited wherein it was laid down that a commitment made before the court to pay maintenance has to be honoured. It has also been argued that the petition cannot disown his liability to pay maintenance to the minors as they were recovered from him and produced before this Court as is evident from this Court's Order dated 6-5-2009 passed in Cr1. Misc.No,549/H/2009.
6. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the available record.
7. The main issue raised in this petition is with respect to Family Judge's order dated 24-11-2009 which was passed under section 17A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for petitioner's noncompliance with Family Judge's order dated 7-10-2009. It is on record that the petitioner appeared in the Court on 29-10-2009 and undertook to pay the interim maintenance for which he was given several opportunities but still he did not pay. The -petitioner cannot dispute the undertaking given by him as order dated 29-10-2009 bears his thumb impression in acknowledgement of his undertaking to pay the interim maintenance. It appears that till 20-11- 2009 the petitioner availed several opportunities to pay the interim maintenance. As is shown by orders dated 17-11-2009 and 20-11-2009, the petitioner never disowned his liability to pay the interim maintenance when the case was adjourned allowing him further time to pay the interim maintenance. Thus, the petitioner accepted his liability to pay the interim maintenance as he committed to pay it and also availed various opportunities to pay it. The petitioner's categorical commitment on 29-10-2009 to pay the interim maintenance before the Family Judge could not be ignored but had to be honoured. After accepting his liability to pay the interim maintenance, the petitioner has made a volte face to deny his liability which cannot be allowed. It would of benefit to refer here to Mavra Arshad v. Sheikh Ehsan Ghani (2005 SCMR 1293) where the honourable Supreme Court did not allow a father and grandfather to back out of their counsel's commitment made before the honourable Supreme Court to pay maintenance to the minor. It is also to be noted that the petitioner had not challenged the Family Judge's order dated 7-10-2009 but has challenged it only after the order dated 24-11-2009 was passed in consequence of petitioner's non- compliance of the order dated 7-10-2009. The petitioner is estopped from assailing order dated 7- 10-2009 which he undertook to comply with. As such, the Family Judge's order dated 24-11-2009, passed against the petitioner, cannot be challenged as it is the necessary consequence of the petitioner's noncompliance of the Family Judge's order dated 7-10-2009 in view of the provisions of section 17A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. At the same time, it has to be said the quantum of monthly maintenance, being Rs.2000 for each minor, decreed by the learned Family Judge is not only reasonable but is also exactly the same as was ordered by way of interim maintenance earlier.
8. There can be no cavil to the proposition that as a rule the paternal grandfather is bound to maintain his grand children, if their father is not alive. In support, reference may be made to Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Ashfaq and others supra where it was held that the paternal grandfather was under an obligation to provide maintenance to the children of his pre-deceased son even though he was an old man and only owned a small piece of land. Similarly, Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional, District Judge, Lyallpur and others supra emphasizes the obligation of a paternal grandfather to maintain his needy grand-children who have a corresponding right to be maintained by their paternal grandfather. Such an obligation or right is not limited in scope and cannot be excluded where the father, though alive, cannot or does not attend to the needs of his destitute minor children. This is what appears to have happened in the present case as the father of the minor children, alive and living in Saudi Arabia, is unwilling or is unable to discharge his obligation of maintaining his minor children. In the circumstances, the petitioner, being the paternal grandfather, must be burdened with the liability to support his minor grandchildren who have no means or source of income to take care of their basic needs. The paternal grandfather is bound to maintain his minor grand children in need regardless of whether or not they are orphans with the difference in the former case the paternal grandfather has the right to be reimbursed by the father of minors. It is also important to note that the petitioner willingly and happily kept the minors in his house till they were recovered from him pursuant to the Order dated 6-5-2009, passed by this Court, in Crl. Misc.549-H-09. In any case, there can be no doubt about the liability of the petitioner to maintain his grandchildren after his categorical undertaking given before the Family Court on 29-10-2009. Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others supra was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that in the presence of the father, the paternal grandfather cannot be burdened with the obligation of providing maintenance to his grandchildren. However, the said precedent is distinguishable and is of no help to the petitioner as it involved the issue of liability of a father when his children were being maintained by their maternal grandparents.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and judgments/decrees of the learned courts below. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.