ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the two orders dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge confirming the order dated 9.02.2012 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner divorced his wife (respondent No. 1) on 6.3.2008 whereafter on 20.03.2008 the father of respondent No. 1 admitted to have received Rs. 80,000/- in cash as maintenance and in case of second marriage the custody of the minor/respondent No. 2 was to be returned to the petitioner. Three tola of gold was also admitted in the Jirga to be in possession of respondent No. 1. On 20.07.2008 respondent No. 1 contracted second marriage with the result that respondent No. 2 is in the custody of father of respondent No. 1. On the contrary respondent No. 2 filed a suit for maintenance against the petitioner in May, 2008. The petitioner reciprocated by filing a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1925 against respondent No. 1. Both the suits and the petition were entrusted to one Court in which issues were framed and the evidence was led. On 9.02.2012 the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of respondent No. 2 awarding the past as well as future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month since May, 2008 with 10% annual increase but the petition for guardianship was dismissed.
3. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 1 & 2 filed appeals against the said order and both these appeals were decided on 28.05.2012, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and partially accepting the appeal of respondent No. 1 the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi enhanced the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 2500/- to from Rs. 3500/-. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant of maintenance and dismissal of guardianship petition was against the decision of JIRGA held on 20.03.2008 in which the affidavits were sworn; that the petitioner admittedly within 20 days of the divorce paid lump-sum amount to the father of respondent No. 1; that the petitioner is serving abroad for monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month in which he maintains his second wife, younger sister, his own parents and the maintenance so granted by the Trial Court is excessive in nature and beyond his financial capacity. Hence prays for setting aside of the two orders.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner had enough resources to maintain respondent No. 2 and the amount fixed by the Appellate Court is not unjustified; that the petitioner had never paid a single penny of maintenance to respondent No. 2; that a Muslim father is bound to maintain his child which responsibility the petitioner had failed to discharge and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner resides abroad and is settled with his second wife. Moreover, to establish his bona fides he was required to pay maintenance to respondent No. 2. The petitioner has not paid the maintenance to the minor son since May, 2008. The salary slip Ex.D-3 reveals that the petitioner is drawing a salary of 520 Saudi Riyal. The visitation rights of the petitioner were also granted by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi. When the parentage of respondent No. 2 is admitted there was no reason for the petitioner for not maintaining his son. The Appellate Court had rightly determined the maintenance @ Rs. 3500/-. No ground for custody of the minor was taken in the writ petition seriously. There is no jurisdictional defect or illegality in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. In this view of the matter this writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed.