FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition, order and decree dated 17.01.2018 and judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 passed by respondent No. 1 have been assailed. By virtue of the former order , a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by respo ndent Nos. 2 and 3 to the extent of respondent No. 3 (Minor) has been decreed under section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (Act). and through the latter judgment, the suit to the extent of respondent No. 2 (wife) has also been decreed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that marriage was solemniz ed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 23.08.2012. Out of the wedlock, respondent No. 3 was born. Due to altercation between the spouses, a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner , in which the latter filed his writte n statement, whereupon out of divergent pleadings of parties, 04 issues were framed. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the interim maintenance allowance, therefore, vide order dated 17.01.2018 right of defence of the petitioner was struck off and to the extent of minor (respondent No. 3) the suit was decreed, subsequent to which, respondent No. 2 produced her evidence however since the right of defence of the petitioner was struck off, thus, neither he cross-examined the witnesses of respondent No. 2 nor produced his evidence, whereafter vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 respondent No. 2 was also held entitled to recovery of maintenance allowance only to the extent of period of Iddat whereas her suit for recovery of dowry articles was dismissed as withdrawn, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not contest this petition to the extent of decree passed in favour of respondent No. 2 however while contesting the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 3 he submits that the quantum of maintenance allowance is beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner .
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. A perusal of the available record would show that at present the age of minor/respondent No. 3 is 05 years and admittedly she is school going. Respon dent No. 1 while striking off the defence of the petitioner due to non- payment of interim maintenance allowance granted a decree in favour of respondent No. 3 fixing the quantum of maintenance allowance at Rs. 5,000/- per month with 10% annual increase.
6. Confronted with the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that how the above amount is exorbitant or is beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner . In order to substantiate his case, learned counsel has tried to rely on the evidence produced by respondent No. 2 however he has lost sight of the fact that the stance taken by a party has to be proved by him and he cannot reap the benefit of the lacunae left in the evidence of the other party . For reference, reliance can be placed on judgments reported as Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Hussain [1991 SCMR 703], Mst. Zainab v. Majeed Ali and another [1993 SCMR 356] and Abdul Majeed and others v . Amir Muhammad and others [ 2005 SCMR 577 ].
7. In view of the above and keeping in view the needs of a growing minor child, respondent No. 1 has rightly decreed the suit. Even otherwise, there is no defence on part of the petitioner wherefrom this could be ascertained that he lacks the financial resources to pay the quantum of maintenance allowance. In fact the conduct of the petitioner qua non-payment of interim maintenance allowance is glaring from the fact that he desisted from paying the interim maintenance allowance, because of which, he was proceeded under section 17-A of the Act.
8. For what has been discussed above, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned order/judgment and decrees, therefore in view of judgments reported as Muhammad Rafique v. Saima Rafique (Minor) and 2 others [2002 SCMR 1290 ], Tasawar Hussain v. Mst. Farzana Kausar and others [PLD 2015 Lahore 208] and Mst. Saman Naseer v.
Additional District Judge, Lahore and others [2020 CLC 549], no ground for interference is made out, as a sequel to which, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.