' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has assailed the judgments dated 22.2.2014 and 20.1.2015, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Tehsil Shapur, Sargodha, and the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, respectively whereby suit filed by resp9ndents Nos. 1 to 4 has been decreed to the extent of allowing maintenance allowance @ Rs,2000/- per month each to respondents Nos.2 to 4 w.e.f, the date of institution of the suit till their entitlement.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition and pressed by his learned counsel during course of hearing of the instant petition is that both the courts below have erred in law while granting future maintenance to respondents Nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel has argued that by grant of future maintenance to the minors/respondents Nos.2 to 4 both the courts below have travelled beyond their jurisdiction. He has further argued that both the impugned judgments of the courts below being contrary to law and facts on record are liable to be set aside.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner has no objection to the grant of past maintenance to his minor children/respondents Nos.2 to 4. He has only challenged the impugned decree only to the extent of grant of future maintenance to the minors. The law does not make any distinction between "past" and "future maintenance". In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Aurangzeb v. Judge Family Court, Khanewal and others (2004 M LD 8). As per settled law a father is bound to pay maintenance allowance to his minor children till their legal entitlement. Mere non-mentioning of the word "future maintenance" in the plaint neither disentitles the minors from future maintenance nor absolves the petitioner father from the duty of providing maintenance to his minor children till their entitlement. There is nothing on the record to show that the minors or their mother/respondent No,1 are living with the petitioner after passing the impugned judgments and decrees, so they are not entitled to future maintenance. A child who is entitled to past maintenance is also entitled to/future maintenance. If the plaintiffs-respondents in their plaint omitted to claim future maintenance along with the past maintenance, the Court itself is empowered to grant such relief for complete administration of justice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases of Samar Gul v. Central Government and others (PLD 1986 SC 35) and Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCM R 984). In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that both the courts below have not committed any illegality or travelled beyond their jurisdiction by granting future maintenance to the minors, which is their undeniable, legal and vested right.
5. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.