MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment and decree dated 6-7-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondents/plaintiffs, filed a suit for the payment of maintenance allowance against their father Rasheed Ahmed, claiming that their father has turned them out from his house few days ago on account of a dispute over their share in the estate of their mother. Their father is not providing them maintenance allowance. Their father is a businessm an and he can easily pay the maintenance allowance to them. The defendant/petitioner appeared and controverted the allegation of respondents.
3. The learned trial Court on 10-1-2007 directed the petitioner/ respondent to pay Rs,1500 per month to each respondent/petitioner as their interim maintenance and framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of maintenance? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
(2) Relief"
4. After framing of issues, the plaintiffs/respondents appeared themselves as their own witnesses and submitted a sale-deed as mark 'A' being the documentary evidence. The defendant himself appeared as his own witness and examined P.W.2. Muhammad Irfan and produced Exh.D.3 to Exh.D.9 the medical prescriptions and receipts.
5. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20-11-2008 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,2500 per month 'to each respondent from the date of institution of suit till their marriage with 10% annual enhancement.
6. The defendant/petitioner assailed the said judgment through an appeal which too failed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Courts below have failed to apply the relevant law on the facts of the case. He submits that the decree holders are disobedient to their father, as they have left his house against his wishes and will. He and his other family members repeated efforts to bring them back to home prove of no avail. The petitioner offered that he is ready to marry them according to their wishes and choice but they decline his offer. He further contends that all the respondents are major and have passed through the normal age of minority as their ages are around 30 years. He lastly adds that the disobedient child is not entitled to any maintenance specially when he/she becomes major according to Islamic law as well as the law of the land.
8. beamed counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of both the Courts below and submits that it is the duty of the father to provide maintenance to his daughters till their marriage.
9. I have gone through the record and evidence produced by the parties with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case the point requires consideration is whether the father is bound to provide maintenance to his major disobedient female child? It is an admitted fact that the ages of the three daughters are approximately to 25 years each. Plaintiff No,2 Miss Rabia Rasheed when appeared as her own witness she deposed that she is student of M.A. class.
The petitioner/defendant is his real father. He had thrown her out on 23-3-2006 from his house after beating. Her mother has died leaving behind one house and the defendant wants to usurp their share in the estate of her mother. The father is not paying any maintenance to them. She further deposed that her father is a businessman and his total income is Rs,71,000 per month. The plaintiff No,3 Shahla Rasheed appeared in witness box and made the same statement which her other sister deposed. In cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that they are seven sisters and four brothers. She further admits that out of seven sisters, three sisters and two brothers are married.
She further admits that her brother Asif and sister Nageena are mentally retarted. The age of her father is more than 70 years. <u>She admits that she is not willing to live with her father even if her father is willing to marry her of her choice. She states that she is not ready to live with her father at any cost</u>. She admits that her age is 25 years. She further admits that she is living in "Dastak".
She left the house due to inhumane behaviour of her father. She denied that due to leaving her house, her family has been disgraced in the Bradari as well as in the society. She admits that her father is a heart patient but she is not aware how much expenses her father is incurring for his medical treatment. She further states that she is not aware how much expenses her father is spending for maintaining of two retarted children. P.W.2 appeared in the witness box and states the same wording, which her elder sister deposed. She admits that she is 22 years old. On Court's question that where she is living, she refused to reply the said question and said that she has a life threat if she will disclose her place of living and she may suffer loss. She denied that all the three sisters are living in "Dastak". She states that her father has not accepted their demands and as such she is not ready to go back to her father's house. The petitioner appeared as D.W.1 and deposed that Umer Hayat was his wife who has died but there was no house in her name. He denied the, allegation of his daughters.
10. In the above state of affairs it is not difficult for a man of ordinary prudence to understand that the plaintiffs/ respondents are disobedient daughters. They have not claimed that their father was not arranging their food and educational expenses when they were living in their father's house but are complaining that their father wants to usurp their share in property, which their mother left. It is proved on record that respondents are living in "Dastak" which institution is providing every facility and necessity of life to all shelterless female residents. The said institution providing love and affection to all of its residents specially the female residents. The respondents are not facing any difficulty in getting their bread and butter and other necessities of life in the said institution. The three respondents have opted to live in the said institution with their free consent and will. They are so happy there that they have refused to come back to their father's house where they born and grown up. The respondents have refused to join their father and other family members even when their father is ready to accept their all demands.
11. This is an admitted fact that all the three respondents are major and they are free to take decision for the betterment of their life, they are not dependent upon anyone including their father.
If the child attains majority, the father stands absolved from his obligation to provide necessities of life to the major children. No doubt father is duty bound in the case of a daughter to arrange her marriage with her consent but where daughter refused to take the assistance of her father in her personal matter like marriage, then the father could not be burdened with the liability to pay the expenses of the marriage of her rude and disobedient daughter.
12. A maintenance allowance is payable to the child who is minor and is unable to earn his/her bread and butter and other expenses of life.
13. A father will not be under any legal or moral obligation to maintain his child who left his house and opted to live away from him specially when the child is major.
14. In the present case, the three daughters are major and are capable to earn their livelihood themselves being highly educated and are not dependent upon any one. No doubt, the father is bound to get his daughter married but in the present case the daughter, when refused to marry even when the father is ready to arrange her marriage according to her wishes and will, how a father can be forced to pay the maintenance allowance to a girl who has no sympathy and love with her ailing father.
15. Learned both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the above said aspect of the case. This case is not a case of a minor child but the demand of maintenance is by the major disobedient female child. In this modern era, how a major child can force his father to pay maintenance to him/her when he/she refused to live with father. The major child can earn his/her livelihood himself/herself. In my humble view; the major child male or female does not fall in the definition of dependent.
16. It is an admitted fact that father's and mother's guidance for their children is always helpful for becoming a good citizen of the society. But when the major child decides to take his/her decision, the father is not obliged to provide any assistance both moral and financial to the child.
17. The present case is of exceptional nature where a major child who proves to be disobedient especially the female is claiming maintenance from their old ailing father who has spent his whole life for the brought up of his 11 children out of which two are ,mentally and physically retarted and are special children.
18. If the allegations of respondents are accepted to be true, that their father wanted to usurp their share in the property left by their mother that too cannot become the cause to recover the maintenance from their father. They are major, sui juris and highly educated members of society hence they can easily knock the door of the Court for their grievance about their share in the estate of their mother. The Court will protect their right if they will approach the court but their claim for maintenance allowance against the father cannot be allowed in these circumstances.
19. In my humble opinion, both the Courts below have not considered the case of petitioner in its true letter and spirit. I, in these circumstances, am of the firm opinion that, the plaintiffs/respondents are not entitled of any maintenance from the petitioner and as such I hereby set aside both the judgments of lower Courts below and dismiss suit for recovery of maintenance. There is no order as to costs.