' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.--- This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan whereby he awarded the maintenance to minor children who are respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the present writ petition Rs,5,000/- per month per minor with 10 % increase per annum and the judgment and decree dated 8-1-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby the appeal was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court had not considered the financial position of the petitioner while awarding maintenance to minoRs, He next contended that pay slip attached with the petition shows that he is getting Rs,34,000/- per month, thus, it is not possible for him to pay Rs,15,000/- per month to the minoRs, He has also placed reliance upon "Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional: District Judge, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 760), wherein the principle was laid down that father's obligation to maintain the minors was only to the extent of his status and financial condition and Family Court must keep these factors in mind while granting maintenance and 10% annual increase was also an excessive amount.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The plaint is available on record in which in para-12 it had been mentioned that the petitioner/defendant was working as Deputy Manager Production Steel Mills Karachi and his monthly pay was Rs,80,000/- and including the bonus he gets Rs,2,50,000/- per month. The maintenance was claimed @ Rs,15,000/- for the minoRs, The petitioner-defendant made the appearance and filed written statement and in reply to para-12 of the plaint it was alleged that he was an employee in the steel mills but his monthly pay was Rs,28,000/- and that he had also obtained loan and there was monthly deduction from his pay. Issues were framed and the relevant issue was issue No,1 which reads as under:- "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree for recovery of maintenance allowance, if so on what rate and for what period? OPP
5. The plaintiff i.e.. Mother of minors appeared as P.W.1 and submitted her affidavit Exh.P-1 wherein it was maintained that the petitioner-defendant was Deputy Manager in Steel Mills, Karachi, and his monthly income including allowances was more than rupees one lac per month. It was further alleged that the minors were studying in British International School and their monthly education expenditure was Rs,21,000/- to Rs,30,000/- per month. She was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination she admitted that she along with her minors remained at Karachi where the children were getting education and they were position holdeRs, She also admitted that at Karachi, their education expenses were from Rs,8,000/- to. Rs,10,000/- and education expenses plus expenses of house hold were Rs,40,000/- per month. She further deposed that she had no knowledge of the pay of petitioner-defendant but according to her information; he might have been receiving Rs,1,00,000/-. She further deposed that the monthly fee of her son Muhammad Khan was Rs,2300/- and of daughter Rs,2200/- and of youngest son Rehan. Rs,2Q00/-. She also produced the receipts of fee of children. Even when P.W.1 was cross-examined not even a.Single question was put to her that in fact the monthly pay of defendant was Rs,34,000/- or what was it. In spite of many opportunities the defendant did not produce any evidence and ultimately his evidence was closed but he participated in the subsequent proceedings and even at the time of final arguments before the learned Judge Family Court the arguments were addressed by him. In the written statement he had mentioned his pay to be Rs,28,000/- per month but today before this court he has invited the attention of this court to some pay slips attached with this writ petition to show that his pay was Rs,34,000/-. However, this pay slip is not part of evidence. It is strange, that he did not produce any evidence before the learned trial Court nor he even himself appeared as witness to rebut the contentions raised by the plaintiff. It is also not out of place to mention here that before the appellate court he admitted that his pay was Rs,42,000/- per month which is so mentioned by the appellate court in its judgment.
6. Be that as it may, even for argument sake it be presumed that he is getting Rs,34,000/- per month even then for three children Rs,15,000/- per month is not excessive amount. If the children would have been residing with him even ihen he was bound to spend this amount on three children, since they not only need the education but they also need food, clothes and other articles.
Now-a-days when prices of everything have gone sky high, in my humble view Rs,5,000/- per month per minor is not sufficient amount to meet entire expenditure. Keeping in view the devaluation in the rupee and increase in the prices, the annual increase awarded by the courts below is also not excessive amount since the prices have gone very high now-a-days.
7. As far as the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the said case also the same principle was laid down that while awarding maintenance the financial position of the father should be kept in mind. Thus, in the light of available evidence and even his own admission does show that his financial position is such that he could pay the amount to minors as awarded by both the courts below. This being so, this writ petition has no force and the same stands dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.