MUDASSIR KHALID ABBASI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 07.07.2015 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Lahore/respondent No,1 whereby application for amendment of plaint, filed by respondent No,2/ plaintiff, was accepted.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that respondents Nos,2 to 5 have filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against the petitioner. During pendency of the suit, respondent No,2 filed an application for amendment in the plaint with regard to the recovery of wedding expenditures i,e, dowry articles of respondents Nos, 3 and 4 which was contested by the petitioner by filing written reply. Learned Judge Family Court accepted the said application vide impugned order dated 07.7.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case. Further contends that learned Judge Family Court has no powers to pass such order.
Argued that the amendment sought by respondents has changed the entire complexion of the suit. Moreover, Schedule of Family Courts Act, does not provide the expenditures for the marriage of children. He relies on "Sh. Muhammad Siddiq v. Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others" (1998 MLD 624), "Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and another" (PLD 1982 Lahore 92), "Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Hajra Bibi and 2 others" (PLD 2007 Lahore 515) and "The Muree Brewery Co. Ltd v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others" (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 279).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have opposed the contentions rated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that impugned order is in accordance with law and there is no legal infirmity conunitted by the learned Judge Family Court, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. Contends that this writ petition being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Critically important feature of this particular case is that as to whether the maintenance includes the marriage expenditures of a daughter.
7. Primary thrust of the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner is that in terms of definition of maintenance provided in paras 369 and 370 of the Mohammadan Law by D.F. Mulla, maintenance includes food, raiment and lodging. Moreover, a father is bound to maintain his daughters until marriage. Besides that jurisdiction of Family Court for grant of marriage expenses has been called in question by the petitioner.
8. While dilating upon the afore-cited legal proposition it would be appropriate to take wisdom from a pronouncement made by the apex court in a judgment cited as "Humayun Hussain v.
Salam Humayun" (PLD 2013 SC 557). In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where an adult son claimed himself to be maintained by his father on the ground of disability. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that father is bound to maintain his son till he attains the age of majority according to the definition of maintenance in Mohammadan Law.
At this juncture, it was explicitly held by the apex court that from the very language of Para-369 of Mohammadan Law maintenance means and includes food, raiment and lodging. Such definition is neither conclusive nor exhaustive and undoubtedly has wider connotation which should be given an extended meaning.
10. At this juncture, it would not be out of context to advert towards the concept of Wali in Islam although the status of Wali has not been conferred either upon father and mother and has been left open to the 'court to determine and give status of Wali to a person to secure welfare of minor however, a broader definition of Wali would lead to a conclusion that the concept of Wali has direct nexus with the concept of protector. So far as the question of jurisdiction of the Family Court with regard to pass such decree is concerned suffice it to say that section 5 read with schedule (part-I) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 fully empowers the Judge Family Court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to the maintenance. It was an application filed by the respondent for amendment in pleadings which was allowed by the Judge Family Court with regard to the marriage expenses. Argument has been advanced by the other side that it shall alter the complexion of the suit has no force.
11.It is well established principle of law that while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution it must remain within sight that these powers can only be invoked if the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity or a jurisdictional defect which does not exist in this case.
12.Impugned order dated 07.7.2015 passed by the trial court which has been assailed before this court is interim in nature and in terms of section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 no appeal or revision shall lie against the interim order passed by the Family Court. Statute excluding a right of appeal from an interim order cannot be bypassed by bringing under attack such interim order in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case reported as "Syed Sagheer Ahmad Province of Sindh" (1996 SCMR 1165).
In view of above, I am not persuaded to interfere in the impugned order dated 07.7.2015 passed by the Judge Family Court. This petition does not succeed and is dismissed. 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.