MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. -- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity of judgments and decrees dated 7.2.2012 and 1.5.11.2012 passed by the learned Courts below. Through the former learned Judge Family Court awarded maintenance allowance to minor Muhammad Hayyan at the rate of Rs, 8,000/- per month with 10% annual increase from the date of institution of suit till his majority and through the letter learned lower Appellate Court while partially accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court maintained the quantum of maintenance allowance of minor, however, disallowed automatic annual increase of 10%.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below with regard to the quantum of maintenance allowance of the minor are based on surmises and conjectures and result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the maintenance allowance awarded to minor is beyond the means of the petitioner; that no doubt monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs, 33/34 thousand yet he has to maintain his elderly parents and younger brothers as such he is unable to pay the maintenance allowance to the minor at such an exorbitant rate; that the evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and the conclusions drawn therefrom are liable to be struck down.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
4. Admittedly, the minor Muhammad Hayyan is a legitimate son of the petitioner and he is legally and morally bound to maintain him and he cannot be allowed to shed of this responsibility on the pretext that he also has some other dependants. Moreover, to determine the amount of maintenance was the function of the Family Court, which is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters. This Court in its extra-ordinary/jurisdiction can neither substitute finding of fact recorded by the Family Court nor give its opinion about adequacy or quality of evidence.
Appraisal of evidence, assessm ent of its evidentiary value and drawing inference therefrom was within the competency of the Family Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's monthly salary is more than Rs, 34,000/- per month, therefore, the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge Family Court and affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court is neither harsh nor exorbitant rather in consonance with the means of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine.