The Respondents No. 3 & 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month and delivery expenses of Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit by filing written' statement. The learned trial Court after recording evidenc e of the parties, fixed the maintenance allowance of Respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 5000/-per month from the date i.e. 24.05.201 1 alongwith 10% annual increase and Rs. 20,000/- as delivery expenses to Respondent No. 4 vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2014.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are against law and facts and result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned lower Court had drawn a wrong conclusion that the petitioner can easily pay Rs. 5000/- with 10% annual increase as maintenance allowance; that the petitioner is dependent on his brother namely Bashir Ahmad and is residing with him in Italy. The petitioner has no source of income because the petitioner is abnormal person to some extent due to his short height and he is unable to do any work. The Respondents No. 3 & 4 failed to prove the salary/ monthly income of the petitioner but the learned lower Court without considering this fact, awarded the maintenance allowance. She further adds that it is an establish principle of law that while awarding maintenance allowance, the financial status of the person must be considered. The petitioner is already paying Rs. 3000/-per month which was also above the capacity of the petitioner and prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly , the Respondent No. 3 is minor son of the petitioner/defendant and it is the duty of the petitioner/defendant, being father , to maintain and support his minor son as per injunction of Islam and provide him all the requisites of life including shelter , food, clothing and protection. The petitioner/defendant is living in Italy and he went there as an immigrant. Being immigrant, he is enjoying social security and unemployment fund/ support.
There is no cavil with the proposition that Islam did not compel a person to do any acts beyond his capacity but at the same time social status of the man and level of his legitimate financial sources which are eminent factors B for deciding the quantum of maintenance, shall not be ignored. The learned trial Court has rightly fixed the maintenance allowance of the Respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.
5. It is evident from perusal of plaint, written statement and evidence on record that the Respondent No. 2/plaintif f No. 4 was residing in her parent's house since from November , 2010 and the minor plaintif f was born in a private hospital on 24.05.201 1. There is c nothing on record to show that delivery expenses were paid by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant, while recording his statement as DW-1, states that he is unaware that where the minor plaintif f was born and he is completely unaware about the expenses regarding the birth of the minor because he was in Italy at that time. The learned lower Courts, keeping in view the circumstances of society and evidence on record awarded Rs. 20,000/- as delivery expenses which are not very high. Both the judgments of learned lower Courts are in accordance with law, which were passed keeping in view the evidence on record. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts which are maintained and upheld. Resultantly , the instant petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.