' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.7--By this civil petition, leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner Abdul Razzak to impugn the order dated 18-4-2011, in C.P. No,457 of 2009, passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, whereby said petition, preferred by him against the judgments and decrees of the Family Court dated 26-6-2007 and the appellate Court dated 18-3-2009/20-3-2009, passed in a suit for maintenance and recovery of dower amount, being. Family Suit No,23 of 2006, was dismissed, and the concurrent findings recorded by respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein, in favor of respondent No,1 were maintained.
2. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that on 4-8-2006, respondent No,1, Mst. Shabnam Noonari, instituted Family Suit No,23 of 2006, against the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:-- "(a) That this honorable Court may be pleased to pass decree of Rs,500,000 (five lacs) against the defendant which the defendant has written for payment to the plaintiff according to agreement and the defendant is bound to pay the same to the plaintiff according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(b) That this honorable Court may also be pleased to pass decree in favor of the plaintiff for maintenance to the plaintiff for the last two years at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month total amount Rs,72,000 and for future at the same rate and maintenance for minors at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month, total Rs,72,000 for one month and Rs,35,000 for another child. Total amount for maintenance for past for children Rs,1,08,000 for future the same rate. Total amount of past maintenance for plaintiff and children Rs,1,80,000 (Rupees one lac eight thousand).
(c) That this honorable Court also may be pleased to pass decree against the defendant to pay Rs, 100,000 (one lac) to the plaintiff being delivery expenses over the plaintiff at the time of delivery.
(d) That any other relief which this honorable Court deems fit and proper be awarded to the plaintiff.
(e) That costs of the suit be borne by the defendant."
3. After filing of written statement by the petitioner on 8-9-2006, holding of pre and post-trial proceedings and recording of evidence, said suit of respondent No,1 was decreed by the Family Court, Kandahar in the following terms:-- "It is ordered by Judgment that the upshot of discussion made on issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 is that plaintiff Mst. Shabnam is entitled for past maintenance with effect from 4-8-2006 at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month and future maintenance at the same rate of Rs,3,000 per month with 5% increase per year till legal entitlement. Both minor daughters are also entitled for past maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month each daughter with effect from 4-8-2006 and also further maintenance at the same rate of Rs,2,000 per month each daughter with 5% increase per year till both daughters get married. The plaintiff Mst. Shabnam is allowed delivery expense charges Rs,2,000 and same delivery expense/charges are liable to be paid by defendant to plaintiff. The instant suit stands decreed on terms of discussions on issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 with no order as to costs.
4. Such decree of the Family Court was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kandiaro, vide Family Appeal No,4 of 2007, which was dismissed by the said appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 18-3-2009, in favor of respondent No,l. These concurrent findings, awarding past and future maintenance to the respondent No,1 and her two daughters from her wedlock with the petitioner were then challenged by the petitioner by invoking Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which petition was dismissed at the stage of Kacha Peshi by impugned order dated 18-4-2011.
5. Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner vehemently contended that, while awarding maintenance of Rs,3,000 per month in favour of respondent' No,1 and Rs,2,000 each for the two minor daughters of the petitioner in her custody, all the three Courts below have not properly taken into account the financial status and limited source of income of the petitioner, which was not sufficient to meet such huge monthly maintenance charges saddled upon the petitioner.
6. We have considered submissions of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, and perused the material placed on record, which reveals that all the three Courts below have given due attention to the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them before the Family Court and after proper appreciation of the evidence, awarded the decree for maintenance etc. In favor of respondent No,
1. It is for this reason that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which is equitable and discretionary in nature, has also declined to intervene in the matter.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition for leave to appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and leavel refused.