1. ORDER SALMAN HAMID, J.---This petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-7-2010. On the same day, office put up a Note, mentioning therein that this petition was wrongly fixed today (5-7- 2021) and therefore, the Counsel, who comes from Sukkur, was not in attendance and that it was a mistake of the office that the petition was fixed on 5-7-2010. Looking at this aspect of the matter, the suggestion made at "A" in the referring Note' was approved by this Court and the petition was restored to its original position on 5-7-2010.
2. Today, when this petition was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner was called absent and it was adjourned in the interest of justice, looking at the weather conditions. When this Court was about to rise for the tea-break, the learned. Counsel for the petitioner appeared and requested that the petition be taken up for hearing as he has come all the way from Sukkur for it only. Under the circumstance; the learned counsel was asked to remain present in court after tea-break as the petition would be taken up for hearing immediately after tea-break. However when this petition was taken up immediately after tea-break, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present.
3. This petition could have been dismissed on such reason; however, the Court would not like to dismiss it as such and proceeds to dispose it of on merits, without the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. (NOTE: the learned counsel did not appear .Until during the progress of dictation of the order in open court)
5. Present petition is directed against the impugned appellate judgment and decree, dated 31-5- 2010, passed by the learned V-Additional District Judge, Shikarpur in Family Appeal No.8 of 2009 (new No.1 of 2010) re. Zahid Hussain v. Mst. Mehmooda. At page 63 of the court file, the impugned judgment narrates as under:-- "In view of findings, given on above issues, I am of a view that learned lower Court has rightly partly decreed the suit to the extent of 14 months i.e.f. March, 2008 to April, 2009 at the rate of Rs.2500 P.M total amount Rs.35000 and also future maintenance at the. Same rate to be paid by the defendant/appellant to plaintiff/Mst. Mehmooda within 30 days and I am of further view that learned lower Court has rightly partly dismissed the suit for recovery of dowry articles. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower Court is based upon appreciation of evidence, which does not warrant any interference by this Court and same is hereby up-held/maintained. Resultantly, Appeal No.8 of 2009, re: Zahid Hussain v. Mst. Mehmooda, is dismissed with no order as to costs."
6. Looking at the above observation of the Vth ADJ, Shikarpur and also having gone through the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2009, passed by the Vth Civil/Family Judge, Shikarpur in Family Suit No.3 of 2008 thoroughly, particularly finding on Issue No.1 framed by the family court, viz. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for maintenance at the rate of. Rs.5000 P.M. From May, 2007 and onward and Rs.2000 P.M. For baby child" from December 2007 and onward from defendant? Which essentially says that:-- Since it admitted position that plaintiff is were of defendant and minor baby is daughter of defendant but he failed to produce any proof regarding payment of maintenance like were money order etc. To the plaintiff hence claim of plaintiff seems reasonable. Plaintiff is housewife having no source of income and she is dependent on the defendant beside this minor baby is residing with her who is suckling baby hence in such situation defendant is bound to provide maintenance to his child which is admitted by him that he is father of baby. I respectfully rely upon case law reported in PLJ 1986 Lahore Page 338 wherein it is observed by the Honourable High Court of Lahore that "it is liability of father to provide adequate maintenance to his children till custody be distributed in result of legal proceedings . " Under these circumstances defendant is bound to provide maintenance allowance to his were and baby, since defendant is Primary Teacher and he is paying interim maintenance to the plaintiff and his baby as per order of this court passed on 30-4- 2009 at the rate of 1500 P.M for plaintiff and Rs.1000 P.M. For baby total amount Rs.2500 P.M, such order of this court has been complied by the defendant hence by taking lenient view same maintenance is to be provided by the defendant. Defendant is directed to pay past maintenance of Rs.1000 per month of baby and Rs.1500 P.M to the plaintiff which will be started from the filing of this suit viz. In the month of March, 2008 for the period of past (14) months which comes total amount Rs.35000 which was calculated from 1-3-2008 up to 30-4-2009. Defendant is further directed to provide future maintenance at the same rate to the plaintiff and baby. However, he shall pay maintenance to his baby till attain her puberty age or join to defendant, with her freewill and desire. Under these circumstances I answered this issue in affirmative with above observation.
7. Looking at the above observation of the Vth ADJ, Shikarpur and that of the Family Judge, Shikarpur, the conduct of the petitioner is clear which shows that the respondent was thrown out when she was at advance stage of her pregnancy and that even after delivery of the baby girl in December, 2007, the petitioner did not care to meet the delivery expenses and thereafter post natal expenses.
8. He who seeks equity must also do equity. Coming specifically that the respondent is not entitled to the maintenance, suffice to state that from the record it has come to light that it was the petitioner himself who had abandoned her at a very critical stage of her advance pregnancy and that too on the allegations that she does not love him and that she got married to him after her engagement had broken down. In the case of Muhammad Shareef v. Additional District Judge and others, reported as 2007 SCM R 49, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that grant B of past maintenance allowance to plaintiff was not in violation of the injunctions of the Islam inasmuch as that Muslim husband was under legal obligation to maintain his were particularly when she was forced to live away from her husband for no fault on her part. Since, in the present case it has come on record that it is because of the acts of omission and commission of the petitioner himself that the respondent was forced to live with her parents, the order that was passed by the Family Court and sustained by the appellate Court cannot be interfered with lightly and casually as the Court while exercising discretion under the constitutional jurisdiction has to be cautious in exercising its discretion, more particularly when the party seeking discretionary relief comes to the Court with unclean hands.
9. Petition being merit-less is dismissed in limine along with listed applications, however with no order as to cost.