MUDASSIR KHALID ABBASI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment and decree dated 02.10.2015 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal/respondent No,2 and judgment and decree dated 06.02.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal/respondent No, 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos, 3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of Rs,16,000/- as maternity expenses which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.10.2015, respondent No,2 decided the suits in the following terms:- "The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed and it is decided that plaintiff No,2 is entitled to recover maintenance allowance (a) Rs,4000/- per month from institution of this suit till his legal entitlement with 10% annual increase. Interim maintenance paid during trial shall be adjusted.
Plaintiff No,1 is also entitled to recover Rs,10,000/- as maternity and medical expenses. No order as to cost."
3. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, petitioner as well as respondents Nos,3 and 4 preferred their separate appeals before learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal/respondent No,1 who vide impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 06.02.2016 decided the appeals in the following terms:-- "Appeal titled Mst. Parveen Akhtar etc. v. Muhammad Ikram (F.A. No,138 /DJ/2015) is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is modified as under:-- i) Appellant No,2 would recover maintenance allowance Rs,4000/- per month from the date of his birth i,e, 09.12.2013 till attainment of the age of majority with annual increase of 10% therein subject to adjustment of the amount already paid by the respondent as interim maintenance allowance. ii) Appellant No,1 would recover Rs,16,000/- as maternity expenses from the respondent. iii)Consequently the appeal titled Muhammad Ikram v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar etc. (F.A. No,131/DJ of 2015) is dismissed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that judgments and decrees of both the courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record. Further contends that a settlement was made on 05.03.2014 between the parties regarding payment of maintenance @ Rs,2000/- per month and he is ready to pay the same. Further contends that claim of respondent No,3 regarding delivery expenses is incorrect as delivery of minor was normal, expenses of which were paid by the petitioner. Argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are illegal, perverse, arbitrary, against the law and facts of the case, therefore, same are liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos,3 and 4 contends that there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the record. Further contends that this petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. In terms of statement dated 18.07.2016 petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent of the maintenance allowance granted to respondent No,4.
8. Although the case of the petitioner is that through an agreement dated 05.03.2014 respondent No,3 had agreed to receive Rs,2000/- per month from the petitioner as maintenance allowance of respondent No,4, however, the learned Judge Family Court has decreed an amount of Rs,4000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the legal entitlement of the minor. Whereas, the lower appellate court had modified the decree to the extent of the payment of date of birth i,e, 09.12.2013 till attainment of age of majority with annual increase of 10%.
9. So far as the afore-cited agreement is concerned it has been observed that during the cross- examination petitioner, as DW-1 had admitted that at the time of the execution of the said agreement the dowry articles belonging to respondent No,3 was in his possession and he had demanded that if respondent No,3 gives it in writing regarding the maintenance of the minor the dowry articles shall be returned to the said respondent No,3. Both the courts below above have rightly observed that this agreement was executed under compelling circumstances. Moreover settlement between the parties cannot take away the lawful entitlement of minor regarding his maintenance.
10.So far as the resources of the, petitioner are concerned, it is established from the evidence that he has sufficient means to maintain the minor 'at the rate of Rs,4000/- per month. Learned lower appellate court while, passing the impugned judgment has maintained a balance between the earnings of the petitioner and the essential needs of the minor.
11. The findings recorded by two courts below do not suffer from misreading or non reading, of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect/error and illegality in the impugned judgments of the two courts below, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of two courts below, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. What has been discussed above, this petition does not succeed and is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.