1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner Mohammad Zaffar Baig has impugned the Judgment dated 30-5-2011 passed by learned Family Judge, Karachi South in Family Suit No,308 of 2009 whereby she decreed the suit allowing maintenance to respondent.
2. No,1 @ Rs,5000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till expiry of Iddat period.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 Mst. Afshee filed Family Suit No,308 of 2009 for maintenance alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner and dower amount was fixed at Rs,10,00,000/- out of which Rs,9,50,000/- was prompt and Rs,50,000/- was deferred. The entire dower amount still remains unpaid. No formal Rukhsati took place and the petitioner started living with respondent No,1 at his parents' house as he promised to arrange separate accommodation of his own within short time as he was permanently settled in Dubai. On the next date of the marriage petitioner left for Dubai, however returned to Pakistan after one month and started his job in Media Centre. He kept her on false hopes that he will disclose the marriage to his parents and will also arrange separate accommodation. After passage of some time he started maltreating and extending threats to her. She further stated that petitioner has executed' an Iqrarnama wherein he promised to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs,40,000/- but failed to do so. She asserted that since January, 2009 the petitioner has not paid any amount towards maintenance to enable the respondent to meet day to day expenses. Ultimately, the petitioner discontinued to meet her and even did not respond to the telephonic calls of the respondent.
4. ' The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement wherein he denied the allegations made in the plaint. He asserted that he being pupil of respondent No,1, was requested by her to sign the Nikahnama and Iqrarnama in order to facilitate her to take revenge from her ex-husband who had divorced her. According to him, he signed blank Nikahnama as well as Iqrarnama in a hurry and left for Dubai on the next day. He further asserted that after observing her objectionable relations with strangers, he divorced her.
5. ' After recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, both the suit was decreed- vide impugned judgment, hence this petition.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was getting tuition from respondent No,1 who requested him to sign the Nikahnama and Iqrarnama in order to accommodate her in taking revenge from her ex husband who had divorced her. According to him, out of respect she being his teacher, he signed blank Nikahnama so also Iqrarnama in a hurry and on the next day left for Dubai. According to him, in fact, respondent has trapped the petitioner in order to extort money. He, further contended that Iqrarnama was got signed prior to the date of Nikah, therefore same does not come within the purview of contract that the learned Family Court has misread the evidence adduced during the trial of the suit. He contended that only Nikahnama and Iqrarnama was got signed by the petitioner in a hurried manner but the marriage was not consummated in a proper way because soon after signing the Nikahnama the petitioner left for Dubai.
7. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that the judgment passed by the Family Court is well-reasoned and each and every aspect of the case has been discussed elaborately and after appreciating the evidence in a proper manner. Family Court has decreed the suit which calls no interference.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
9. Needless to say that as soon as an adult of sound mind signs the Nikahnama, he enters into a contract whereby heavy responsible is cast upon him, inter alia, to provide basic necessities of the life to his wife. The plea of the petitioner that out of respect and in a hurried manner he signed the Nikahnama and Iqrarnama in respect of payment of maintenance is of no help to him. Such assertions would not absolve him from fulfilling his obligations which have been imposed upon him under the Sharia. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned Family Court has elaborately discussed that point and after taking into consideration each and every aspect of the case, she has already reduced the maintenance of Rs,40,000/- as agreed upon by the petitioner in the Iqrarnama to that of Rs,5,000/- which is absolutely justifiable. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, the constitutional in limine.
10. ' Above are the reasons for short order dated 4-12-2012.