' Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, correctness and validity of the judgments and decrees dated 31.3.2009 and 20.6.2009 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mailsi and the learned Addl. District Judge, Mailsi, District Vehari, respectively.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Mst. Nazia Hussain and Asad Khurshid (minor) instituted a suit for maintenance, contending therein that Mst. Nazia Hussain was married to Khurshid Ahmad (petitioner herein) and that Asad Khurshid (minor) was born to them. Their relations were cordial.
However, some three months prior to the institution of the suit, the petitioner herein turned the plaintiffs/Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 out of his house. It was further averred in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant was a cultivator who could easily pay maintenance to Mst. Nazia Hussain at the rate of Rs.6000/-, a month, while he was liable to pay maintenance to the minor Asad Khurshid at the rate of Rs. 12000/- a month. All in all, past maintenance for three months amounting to Rs.36000/- was demanded. As for future maintenance, it was claimed at the rate of Rs. 18000/- a month.
3. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, denying all the averments made by the plaintiffs. He went to the extent of disowning Asad Khurshid as his child.
Besides repudiating his marriage with Nazia Hussain, Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:--
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get maintenance from the defendant? If so, from when and at what rate? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit against the defendant as the plaintiff has no relations with the defendant? OPD
3. Relief.
4. In support of her claim. Mst. Nazia Hussain appeared herself as P.W.1 and produced Mukhtiar Hussain (P.W.2), Wajid Nawaz (P.W.3) and Haji Akhtar (P.W.4). All of them testified on oath that Mst.
Nazia Hussain was married to Khurshid Ahmad, and that Asad Khurshid, the minor was born to them. They also deposed that the petitioner is a man of means, and can easily afford maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- a month to each of the plaintiffs. As against this, Khurshid Ahmad, appeared as D.W.1 and produced Muhammad Babar Khan as D.W.2. He stuck to his stand that he never married Mst. Nazia Hussain. He went on to disown the paternity of Asad Khurshid. He also stated that he did not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance demanded by the plaintiffs.
This portion of his testimony was recorded in spite of his denial to any relationship with the plaintiffs.
5. Having recorded the evidence of the parties and after listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge Family Court Mailsi decreed the suit for maintenance, ordering the defendant (petitioner herein) to pay maintenance to Mst. Nazia Hussain at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the suit until the period of Iddat, while maintenance of the minor Asad Khurshid was also fixed at the same rate with 10% annual increase. The rest of the claims made by the Plaintiff No. 1 were dismissed. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Mailsi was assailed by filing an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Mailsi. The findings of the learned Judge Family Court were upheld and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2009.
6. As stated above, this writ petition has been filed to challenge the legality of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the very relationship between Nazia Hussain and the petitioner was denied and the paternity of Asad Khurshid was repudiated, the learned Judge Family Court should have refused to proceed with the suit instituted by .Mst. Nazia Hussain, directing her to first institute a suit for declaration. He forcefully argues that the paternity of Asad Khurshid could be determined only by conducting a DNA test. He makes criticism of the laid-back and perfunctory approach adopted by the learned Courts below. He questions the mariner in which" both the learned Courts below determined the crucial issue of paternity of. Asad Khurshid as well as the alleged marriage of Mst. Nazia Hussain with the petitioner. He goes on to argue that both the learned Courts below misapprehended the facts, misconstrued the evidence and misapplied the law: At the fag end of his submissions, he disclosed that the petitioner has already instituted suit seeking to declare that Mst. Nazia Hussain was not married to him and that Asad Khurshid is not his son.
' The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner were controverted, rebutted and refuted by the learned counsel for Respondents Nos. R & 4. He was quite appreciative of the approach adopted by the learned Judge Family Court. He paid tribute to the sagacity of the learned Judge seized with the suit who asked the child to identify his father among a number of persons standing in the Court and observed that the minor was naturally drawn to his father and he did not even take a look at the strangers. This test employed by the Judge suggested to him that the defendant (petitioner herein) was being economical with the truth and that the minor is his son.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record with their assistance. As is obvious from the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is practically seeking reappraisal of the evidence. It goes without saying that this Court cannot undertake this exercise in writ jurisdiction. The law of the land has provided for only one appeal under Section 14 of, the W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964. The writ jurisdiction is not to be allowed to be used as a substitute for second appeal or revision provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Unless there is patent illegality or the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Judge Family Court as also the appellate Court suffer from grave infirmities, this Court would be slow in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by them. As for the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge Family Court ought to have stayed his hands until the conducting of DNA test, if this be made a yardstick/benchmark, it would be used as a ruse in every other case to ward off the demand of provision of maintenance to minors. It is an open secret that the report of DNA test is never readily available. Sometimes, it takes months and months together before the same is made available. The question is whether the Judge Family Court is to abdicate his jurisdiction until the availability of DNA report. The answer must be in the negative. This Court cannot close its eyes to the ground realities, prevailing circumstances as well as the conduct of the unscrupulous elements.
8. Since the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence adduced by the parties, I am not inclined to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below. Their findings are unexceptionable.
9. This petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.