' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---Through this judgment we intend to decide both the listed petitions as both arise of common judgment dated 5.12.2014 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.31371/12 and 11127/13 which have been disposed of by the High Court in the following terms:- ".... This court hold that the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby judgment dated 09.1.2011 passed by the learned Judge Family Court has been modified is not tenable to that extant, however, the concurrent findings of both the courts below to the extent of awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs,20,000/- per month to minor is maintained, whereas judgment of the learned Judge Family Court is restored whereby respondent No,1 was held entitled to the maintenance of Rs,20,000/- per moth till Iddat period. However, the award of annual increase at the rate of 10% is unjustified the same is fixed at the rate of 5% annual increase..."
2. The concise facts are that Farzana Shahzad (hereinafter to be referred as the Wife) filed a suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance for herself as well as her minor son (Muhammad Athar Shahzad) born in matrimonial tie with Shahzad Yousaf (hereinafter to be referred as the Husband) before the Family Court at Lahore wherein the matter was duly contested by Husband. After framing of the issues and recording of evidence, the Family Court vide its judgment dated 19.01.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the Wife entitling her for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per month) from the date of institution of the suit i,e, 20.06.2008 till the expiry of her Iddat period while her minor son was also held entitled to receive maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per month) with an annual increase of 10 percent till his majority. The said judgment was assailed by the Husband before the Additional District Judge, Lahore who modified the decree and judgment of the Family Court by holding that the Wife is not entitled to any maintenance allowance whereas to the extent of minor the judgment of the Family Court was maintained. Both the parties being aggrieved assailed the said judgment before the High Court by filing writ petitions which have been disposed of through the impugned judgment in the terms mentioned above, hence the issue is before us through the listed petitions.
3. Learned counsel representing Shahzad Yousaf contends that the Courts below, have failed to take into consideration that on account of crisis and deterioration in his business he is going through a slum period and at present, is not owner of Norms Textile Sourcing rather just a commission agent. Learned counsel further asserts that besides he has another wife with three children from her whose maintenance is also on his shoulders as such grant of maintenance allowance to Farzana Yousaf as well as her minor son at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per; month) each with an annual increase of ten percent to the minor would be exorbitant and beyond his means. It is further contended that both the parties had entered into a compromise according to which the Wife had agreed to forgo her right of maintenance while the Husband had agreed not to claim custody of the minor and inspite of the same he was also prepared to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs, 10,000/- (per month).
4. On the other hand Farzana Shahzad while appearing in person states that Shahzad Yousaf has been dragging her into 'litigation for denying her maintenance allowance on one pretext or the other. She states that inspite of compromise he has been denying the same and in this regard she has produced copies of Court orders. She further asserts that he is a well off person having position of Chief Executive of Norms Textile Sourcing and can easily pay the maintenance allowance to her as well as her minor; that his children from the other wife are studying in the Beacon House School System which is reputed for its high standard. She has further asserted that the High Court has not taken into consideration that by virtue of section 17-A of the Punjab Family Courts (Amendment)
Act, 2015 it has been determined that maintenance shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year as such seeks acceptance of her petition.
5.We have heard the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned judgments as well as the material placed on the record. From perusal of the judgment of the Family Court it has been observed that after due appreciation of evidence produced by the parties, the learned Judge has held that the Husband while appearing as DW.1 in his affidavit (Exh.Dl) has admitted the factum of running of business in the name and style of Norms Textile Sourcing and has failed to substantiate that on account of financial crises the business was in the slum and on the contrary the Wife has produced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate her stance from which it is apparent that he is a man of source and has good financial position as such able to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,20,000/ (per month) to the Wife till her Iddat and to the minor also at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per month) with an annual increase of ten percent. The appellate Court by modifying the judgment of the Family Court has held that judgment and decree to the extent of the Wife is set aside as such she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance while maintained the same to the extent of the minor against which the High Court while maintaining the maintenance allowance to the Wife as well as her son at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per month) each reduced the award of annual increase from ten to five percent. In our opinion by going through the evidence on our own the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court by holding the Wife (till her Iddat) as well as her minor son (till his majority) as entitled to the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,20,000/- (per month) each with an annual increase of ten percent to the minor is quite justifiable by taking into consideration the financial position of the Husband. Moreover, by virtue of section 17-A of the Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 the maintenance has been held to be increased at the rate of ten percent each year relevant part whereof is reproduced for ready reference:- "17-A. Suit for Maintenance.-
(1) .....................................................
(2) ............................
(3) If the Family Court does not prescribe the annual increase in the maintenance, the maintenance fixed by the Court shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year."
6. In the light of the above discussion, Civil Petition No,219-L/2015, filed by Farzana Shahzad is converted into appeal and allowed and the annual increase which has been reduced by the High Court from ten to five percent is hereby fixed as ten percent. Resultantly, Civil Petition No,30-L/2015, filed by Shahzad Yousaf is hereby dismissed as having no merits.