AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 29.01.2020 pass ed by Respondent No. 1, Judge Family Court, Shaiwal whereby an amount of Rs. 10,000/ per month interim maintenance of the minor daughter has been fixed, At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted on the question of maintainability of this writ petition. Learned counsel has no plausible explanation to offer and states that since the interim maintenance is exorbitant and is not according to the financial' position of the Petitioner , hence this Petition is maintainable as the interim maintenance has been fixed by the Judge Family Court in a hasty manner .
3. The main issue is with respect to the maintainability of this writ petition. Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 provides that no appeal or revision shall be competent against an interim order passed by the Family Court.
Where the statute has specifically barred any appeal or revision against interim orders, the same cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction as it would be negating the explicit provisions of the law. Furthermore the interim order is a tentative order and the issue regarding the quantum of maintenance has yet to be decided after recording of evidence. In the case titled Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand vs. Javed Muhammad and 3 others (1998 SCMR 328), it was held that when an appeal is provided for against the final decision then all issues including preliminary issues should be challenged in the final decision. In another case titled Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary , S&GAD, Karachi and another (1996 SCMR 1165), it was held that where a statute bars the right to file an. appeal against an interim order , then such interim order cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction as the party affected should wait until the final decision and then challenge it in accordance with the law .
4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed in limine.