Briefly put, Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed suit for recovery of maintenance which was dedreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Okara (learned Trial Court) through judgment & decree, dated 25.03.2019, awarding maintenance to Respondents No. 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-each per month from six years prior to institution of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- each per month till their legal entitlement with 10% annual increase. In addition thereto, Respondent No. 1 was held entitled to recover Rs. 8,000/- as maternity expenses from the petitioner .
Aggrieved by the verdict of learned Trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara (learned Appellate Court); hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only aggrieved of decrees of the Courts below to the extent of past maintenance. Adds that since the decree-holders had been receiving the rent of the house, owned by the petitioner , they were not entitled for any decree. Further adds that proceedings regarding title of the house, purchased by the petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 2, are subjudice before the Court of competent jurisdiction and that the petitioner is ready to transfer the house in favour of decree-holders in lieu of the decree passed in their favour .
3. Conversely , learned counsel representing Respondents No 1 to 4, while defending the impugned judgments & decrees, contends that mala-fide on the part of the petitioner and his other family members is evident from the fact that his father (grandfather of the minors) filed civil suit challenging the authenticity of the sale transaction in favour of Respondent No. 2 while suing him through his real father and ultimately succeeded to get it decreed through ex- parte judgment & decree, dated 21.07.2009 and the respondents, upon knowledge about the same, filed application for setting aside thereof which was accepted by the learned Civil Judge, through order , dated 20.04.2018 and now the suit is pending subjudice before the Court of competent jurisdiction; that when Respondent No. 1 managed purchase of the house in question by selling her gold ornaments, neither the petitioner nor his father had any concern with the same; that though Respondents No. 2 to 4 were entitled for decree for maintenance from the year 2007 but learned Trial Court fixed period of six years in view of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which otherwise is not applicable in familial matters and that mala fide on the part of the petitioner is manifest from the fact that he has only paid Rs. 3,56,000/- out of the decretal amount.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and scanning the documents, appended with this petition, I have observed that admittedly Respondent No. 2 is recorded owner of the house which is subject matter of the civil proceedings instituted by father of the petitioner . Till the sale transaction in favour of Respondent No 2 is annulled by the forum of competent jurisdiction, Respondent No. 2 is to be considered as the owner and stance of the petitioner that he had already got transferred the said house in favour of Respon dent No 2, cannot be given any weightage at this, stage.
5. It is very strange to note that on the one hand the petitioner has taken the stance that since the petitioners had been maintaining themselves from the income of the house owned by him, they were not entitled to maintenance but on the other has shown his readiness to transfer the said house in the name of the respondents. Both these pleas do not coincide with each other . Moreover , when PW-1, during cross-examination, negated the suggestion put by the petitioner side that the house was purchased by the petitioner , no illegality has been committed by the Courts'below while passing the impugned verdicts.
6. As per law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in the case of Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar and others (2011 SCMR 1073 ) concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be upset in Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless they are proved to be perverse or result of arbitrariness which is not the position in the case in hand.
7. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.