MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J.--- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgments and decrees dated 30.01.2019 and 31.03.2018 passed by the Courts below to the extent of grant of maintenance allowance of the respondents No. 3 and 4/plaintif fs by stating that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the financial status of the petitioner and refers to his written statement and affidavit furnished by him at trial in support of his claim.
2. It is noticed that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim with regard to his financial status by leading any cogent and reliable evidence in his support. Mere statement that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and cannot pay maintenance of the minor @ Rs. 7000/- per month as decreed by the learned Appellate Court and also the maintenance of the wife for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for her iddat period in lump sum is not sufficient to absolve him of his liability to pay the same as it was for the petitioner to prove his financial position, which onus has not been discharged by him. During cross-examination the petitioner-defendant himself admitted that he is owner of agricultural land besides receiving of rent of shops adjacent to his house which means that he is a man of means and can pay maintenance of the respondents at the decretal rate and the Court fixed the same by keeping in view the needs of the respond ents, which finding has been given after proper appreciation of evidence available on the record. Learned counse l for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the impugned judgments. The assessment and appraisal of evidence is the function of the Family Court, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. This Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence produced before the Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by the said Courts, nor gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence unless any misreading, non- reading of record or any illegality is pointed out, which have not been established on the record, hence, there is no ground to set aside the said findings of fact.