' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this constitutional petition, petitioner Muhammad Majeed has assailed the legality of order dated 19-5-2012 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Bahawalpur whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1000 per month to respondents Nos.3 and 4.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No,2 Sardar Bibi being mother and next friend of respondent No,3 Tahira Malik and respondent No,4 Muhammad Madni, instituted a suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance of respondents Nos.3 and 4 against the present petitioner on the ground that he being father of the minor respondents is legally bound to maintain them but he has failed to do so. She has claimed the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,4000 per month per child and the arrears of maintenance for the previous 22-months at the same rate. The learned Judge Family Court vide impugned order dated 19-5-2012 fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs,1000 per month per child. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has not fixed the interim maintenance keeping in view the paying capacity of the petitioner; that the petitioner is a poor man, does the manual work and earns Rs,200 per day and is not in a position to pay such a huge amount as interim maintenance to the children.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner's contention is that the interim maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge Family Court is exorbitant keeping in view his financial resources. This being question of fact comes within the purview of factual controversy and cannot be resolved by this Court by exercising constitutional jurisdiction.
7. The impugned order is an interlocutory which has not in any way the effect of final order, which has to be passed ultimately by the learned Judge Family Court after recording the evidence and assessing the paying capacity of the present petitioner and unless an interlocutory order bears characteristics and effect of a final order, it could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. Under section 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Legislature has specifically prohibited the filing of an appeal against an interim order and if the constitutional petition is allowed to be filed against such order, it would tantamount to defeating and diverting the intent of the Legislature. The petitioner has got an alternate adequate remedy available to him by challenging the judgment or order in appeal in case a final order is passed against him. The learned Judge Family Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned order.
' Resultantly, the present petition is incompetent and not maintainable the same is hereby dismissed in limine.