Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan S/o Muhammad Ishaq defendant in a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by Usman All minor through his mother Mst. Kausar Bibi has challenged the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court whereby suit filed by Respondent No. 3 was decreed and while deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 3 fixed the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month till he attained the age of majority vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.2009. The appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below now the petitioner has approached this Court through the writ petition in hand.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to Respondent No. 3 who is represented by Mr. Zulifqar Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is employed in Pakistan Army and is earning only Rs. 5500/-per month but the learned trial Court without any lawful justification although financial status of the petitioner was not proved by Respondent No. 3 fixed the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month on the basis of an agreement which was entered between the petitioner and his wife Mst. Kausar Bibi prior to the birth of Respondent No. 3. Learned counsel referred the statement of Kausar Bibi wherein she only stated that she came into knowledge about the monthly earning of the petitioner as this fact was disclosed by him. It is argued that as no independent evidence was led/brought on record by Respondent No. 3 about the financial status and petitioner himself agitated that he was earning Rs. 5500/- per month, therefore, the maintenance allowance fixed by the learned trial Court upheld by the learned appellate Court is excessive and harsh as both the Courts below while deciding . this question has mis-read the evidence on record. Prayed (sic) No. 1 be set aside or the maintenance allowance be reduced to a considerable extent.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the minor-Respondent No. 3 has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that both the Courts below after having thrashed out all factual and legal aspects rightly fixed the maintenance allowance of the minor at the rate of Rs.
3000/- per month which even otherwise in view of the present high rising prices in the country is not exorbitant rather insufficient to meet the daily requirements of the minor-Respondent No. 3.
Prayed that this writ petition being not maintainable be dismissed.
5. I have head the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. Mst. Kausar Bibi mother of Respondent No. 3 appeared as PW-1 and stated that earlier during a dispute between herself and the petitioner, he agreed to reconcile with her and also undertook to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance allowance for the minor as he was earning Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 20000/- per and in this respect he executed an agreement Exh. P1 available on record. The petitioner although appeared as DW-1 but he remain contended by oral he was employed in Pakistan Army as Carpenter. He did not bring on record any pay slip whatsoever to prove his assertion. The agreement (Exh. P1) if seen execution of which is not denied by the petitioner wherein it, is mentioned that the petitioner undertook to pay Rs. 3000/- per month for the minor Usman All in case his wife Mst. Kausar Bibi reconcile with him. As the petitioner himself has not brought on record any positive evidence to prove his financial status both the learned Courts below thus according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case rightly granted maintenance allowance to the minor Usman All Respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month which amount even otherwise is not an excessive amount in the present scenario when the prices of daily commodities are going high -day by day. Resultantly, this writ petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.