MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner , Mashkoor Ahmed Khokhar , has impugned the order dated 26.01.201 6, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Islamabad, whereby an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month was fixed as interim maintenance for each of the three minor children of the petitioner who are presently in custody of their mother , Mst. Sumaira Mashkoor (respondent No.2).
2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 got married on 27.03.2005. During the wedlock four children were born namely Faizan (aged 10), Jamal (aged 7), Saleem (aged 5) and Pakeeza (aged 2). Faizan is in the petitioner's custody , whereas the rest of the three children are in the mother's custody . The petitioner has pronounced divorce to respondent No.2.
3. On 23.05.2015, respondent No.2, along with the three minor children in her custody , filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of dower and dowry articles against the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, Islamabad. The petitioner contested this suit by filing a written statement on 14.11.2015. The learned Court on 07.01.2016 framed issues.
4. On 26.01.2016, the learned Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, and bearing the financial needs of the three minor children as well as the income of the petitioner in mind, fixed Rs.2,500/- per month as interim maintenance for each of the three minor children with effect from February , 2016. Aggrieved by the said order , the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. Akmal Zia Mehmood Khokhar Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that the amount fixed as interim maintenance by the learned Judge, Family Court, was exorbitant. He could not point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order .
6. The learned Judge, Family Court, had passed the impugned order in terms of the provisions of Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which was added to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 vide Ordinance No.IV of 2002. Under Section 17-A ibid, a Family Court has the jurisdiction to pass an interim order for maintenance at any stage of the proceedings in a suit for maintenance. Where such interim maintenance is fixed, payment is required to be made on the fourteenth day of each month failing which the Family Court is empowered to strike off the defense of the defendant and decree the suit. The purpose behind the provision of interim maintenance is to ensure that during the pendency of the legal proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court, financial constrains faced by the minors are ameliorated.
7. The grounds taken by the petitioner in his petition do not cause me to interfere in the impugned order , which is interim in nature. As it is the interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- for each of the three minor children is too meager given the inflation in this day and age. The written statement filed by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, did not disclose that the petitioner had ever been anxious or had made bona fide demands for the custody of his minor children. The father of these three minor children cannot expect their mother keep them as well as to pay all their expenses. Hence, the petitioner is under a legal as well as a moral obligation to maintain and support his children, more so when they are minors. In the case of "Syeda Farhat Jehan v. Syed Iqbal Hussain Rizvi " reported as "2010 YLR 3275 " it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh that the right of maintenance is natural right of minor children and their father could not be allowe d under any circumstance to be negligent about the same. Furthermore, it was held that it was the legal and moral duty of a father as the natural guardian of his minor children to keep maintaining them. No excuse, big or small could absolve a father from his duty of maintaining his minor as guardian through the divine relation of Almighty Allah.
8. Now, the impugned order is only an interlocutory order . The maintenance fixed through such an interim order is only temporary . As and when, the final order is passed the amount fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court, may be modified and revisited in that the quantum of maintenance can be increased or decreased after appraising, evaluating and examining the evidence produced during the trial. The impugned order fixing the interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month for each minor child of the petitioner is not the kind of an order that warrants interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In the cases of Munir Alam v. Civil Judge, Family Court, Lahore reported as 2009 CLC 442, Abrar Hussain. v. Mehwish Rana reported as PLD 2012 Lahore 420 and Shahid Ali Gil v. Mst. Ruqayya Bano reported as 2015 MLD 265, Hon'ble' High Courts have dismissed Writ Petitions against orders fixing interim maintenance. Furthermore, in the case of Ali Adnan Dar v. Judge, Family Court reported as PLD 2016 Lahore 873, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court did not entertain a Writ Petition against an interim order under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 fixing an amount to be paid as an interim maintenance. The said judgment enumerates guidelines to be followed in matters regarding interim maintenance.
9. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in his writ petition is that he is unemployed and has no source of income. By taking this ground he has raised a factual dispute, which cannot be resolved without the recording of evidence. On account of this factual controversy , the instant petition is not maintainable.
10. Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, bars an appeal or revision against an interim order passed by a Family Court. The filing of Writ Petitions against interim orders passed by the Family Courts is to be discouraged because an aggrieved party will have a right to agitate his grievance before the appellate Court when the interim order merges into a final order . The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, being a special law barring a right of appeal or revision against an interim maintenance order , a writ petition against an order under Section 17- A of the said Act would be maintainable only and only if such an interim order is coram non judice , wholly without jurisdiction or based on mala fides . The quantum of the interim maintenance cannot be made a ground for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11. No case has been made out for interference in Writ Jurisdiction with the impugned order dated 26.01.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Islamabad. Consequently , the W rit Petition is dismissed in limine .