SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.--- Through this writ, the petitioner wants this court to set aside the impugned order dated 17-3-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi with the further prayer that he be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents.
2. Contents of the writ petition show that the respondents Nos.3 to 5 filed suit for recovery of maintenance and delivery expenses of respondent No,5 amounting to Rs,20,000 before the Judge Family Court Gujar Khan. The petitioner submitted his written statement and controverted the claim of respondents Nos.3 to 5 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Vide order dated 17-3-2010, learned Judge Family Court struck off the right of defence of -the petitioner due to non payment of interim maintenance. Hence this writ.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the attorney of the petitioner was ready to make payment of the interim maintenance on the day of the passing of the impugned order but the learned trial court without affording him any opportunity passed the impugned order in haste and fanciful manner. On 17-3-2010, the case was fixed for cross-examination but the learned trial Court in spite of the presence of the petitioner's attorney struck off the right of defence of the petitioner and thereby committed illegality and material irregularity. Valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in this case. If the impugned order is not set aside and the petitioner is not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents, he will suffer irreparable loss. It is therefore, prayed that the writ may be accepted and the impugned order dated 17-3-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Gujar Khan be set aside and the petitioner be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record whatever available on the file.
5. Vide ' order dated 22-2-2010, learned Judge Family Court Gujar Khan passed the following order in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties:-- "The defendant is statedly residing abroad, therefore, there is no room for reconciliation proceedings, the same are hereby declared failed and from the pleadings of the parties,' the following issues are hereby framed. Meanwhile by making tentative assessment, interim maintenance allowance of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 is fixed as Rs,2000 per month which shall be paid by the defendant before 15th of each math.
Issues.
(1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover past and future maintenance allowance from the defendant? If so, at what rate and from which period? OPP
(2) Whether plaintiff No, 1 is entitled to recovery of Rs,20,000 as delivery charges and medical expenses on birth of minor plaintiff No,3? OPP
(3) Relief.
To come up for evidence of plaintiff by means of affidavits on 17-3-2010." of 1964). Learned counsel for the petitioner' failed to point out any illegality or irregularity having been committed by the court below in this regard.
8. Moreover, the impugned order before this court is an interlocutory order against which no writ petition can be maintained. The exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against an order is justified inter alia only:--
(i) if the order is a non-speaking order and is violative of the basic law, or
(ii) if it is suffering from infirmities affecting jurisdiction of Court or tribunal, or
6. On 17-3-2010 the plaintiff/ respondent No,2 was present in the Court. Likewise attorney of the petitioner was also in attendance but he did not pay the interim maintenance as ordered by the court. He also failed to give any satisfactory reply of not complying with the order of the Court. So the learned Judge Family Court vide his order dated 17-3-2010 struck off the defence of the petitioner and adjourned the case for the evidence of the respondents. No,3 to 5 on 13-4-2010.
7. As stated above, interim maintenance allowance of Rs,2000 per month was ordered to be paid to the minor children of the petitioner. Since the attorney of the petitioner did not comply with the said order of the Court, that too, without any reason, Judge Family Court was fully justified in closing the petitioner's right of defence under section 17-A Of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV
(iii) if it settles an issue finally to the extent of the said Court.
The above parameters do not apply on the impugned order before this court.
9. Looking from any angle, impugned order is an interim decision. Maintenance has been fixed at Rs,2000 per month temporarily by the learned Judge Family C Court which can obviously be modified later on. It is not a final order adversely affecting the petitioner. The interim order of the kind cannot be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction. Resultantly this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine.
"Kh. Jameel Ahmad v. Judge Family Court Multan and 2 others" (2007 YLR 1401 (Lahore); "Munir Alam through Special Power of Attorney v. Civil Judge/Family Court, Lahore and 2 others" (2009 CLC 442) (Lahore), and "Atta Muhammad v. Mst. Shahnaz Khatoon and 6 others" (2006 YLR 1708) relied upon. H. B . T. /M-510/L