SHAHID KHAN, J. The instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Hazrat Bilal and Amir Zada, against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2023 of the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Buner, vide which, dismissed their appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court/Illaqa Qazi-IV, Buner, dated 25.01.2022. The petitioners seek the following prayer: "It is therefore prayed that by accepting this writ petition, the impugned judgments and decrees dated 24.03.2023 and 25.01.2022 may please be declared as illegal, against the law, without lawful authority and therefore in effective upon the rights of the petitioners and consequently the suit of respondents Nos.01 to 03 may please be dismissed or any other order deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may be passed."
2. In essence, the facts floating on the surface of the record regarding the matter in question are that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a family suit against the petitioners (father and grandfather of the minors/respondents Nos.2 and 3), wherein, they sought the following reliefs: "(i) Dissolution of marriage;
(ii) Recovery of 30 tola gold ornaments as dower;
(iii) Recovery of dowry articles to the tune of Rs.520,000/-;
(iv) Recovery of gold 20 tola gifted to the plaintiff No.1 by her parents;
(v) Recovery of cash amount of Rs.600,000/-;
(vi) Recovery of maintenance allowance @ Rs.12,000/- per month each plaintiff for the last five years and onwards till subsistence of Nikah between the spouses, marriage of the plaintiff No.2 and attaining age of majority by the plaintiff No.3."
3. The petitioners/defendants procured their attendance before the trial Court. They submitted their negative written statement, showed their inability either to pay the maintenance allowance or any other expenses to the respondents/plaintiffs. They further averred in their written statement that the respondent No.1 has forgone from the maintenance, dower and dowery articles per list Ex:PW1/2, through a divorce deed dated 12.06.2018 and she took the responsibility of maintenance of her minor children i.e., the respondents Nos.2 and 3. They also asserted that the petitioner No.2 being grandfather of the minors is not bound under the Law and Sharia to provide them maintenance.
4. The learned trial Court framed issues, to which, both the parties recorded their respective evidence. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court partially decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioners-defendants vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2022, in the following terms: "As sequel to my issue wise findings, the suit of the plaintiffs stands decreed against the defendants to the extent of recovery of maintenance allowance for the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 @ Rs.5,000/- per head per month with 10% annual increase w.e.f. 12.06.2018 till today and onwards till marriage of plaintiff No.2 and attaining the age of majority of plaintiff No.3 while rest of the suit stands dismissed."
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the learned appellate Court for the appropriate remedy by preferring an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, however, after hearing arguments of learned counsel of the parties, the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2023, while having no any other legal remedy, hence, they approached this Court through filing the instant writ petition to achieve the target.
6. Arguments heard and record gone through with the able assistance of counsel for the petitioners.
7. It is transparent from the surface of the record that the petitioner-defendants have approached this Court against the impugned judgments and decrees for its setting aside on the sole controversial question that the petitioner-defendant No.2 has been wrongly and illegally shouldered the responsibility of providing maintenance to the minor respondents-plaintiffs and otherwise too, he being an old feeble person cannot take such responsibility. The record reflects that the petitioner-defendant No.2 recorded his statement as DW3. He deposed in his cross- examination that he is the resident of village Elay of District Buner and a landlord of the area being belongs to Pakhtoon tribe. Relevant para is reproduced for easy reading as follows:
8. It is floating facts on the surface of record that the petitioners belong to a well-off family, as undisputedly, the petitioners have fixed and given 30 tola gold to the respondent No.1 as her dower, which speaks load and clear about their sound financial status. The petitioner No.2 is admittedly a landlord of the area and having other resources while under the law and sharia, if, a father is unable to maintain his minor children, then, the grandfather has to maintain his grandchildren.
Section 370 of the Muhammadan Law provides that if, father is poor or infirm and the mother is also poor, the obligation to maintain the children lies on the grandfather, provided he is in easy circumstances. In prevailing circumstances, the minors cannot be left remediless in the lifetime of a grandfather having reasonable financial resources. As stated above, the petitioner No.2 himself admitted that he is a landlord having financial resources. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Sabia Khanam, reported as PLD 2010 Lahore 119, wherein it was held: "Liability of the grandfather to pay maintenance for the minor would include past maintenance as well as future maintenance as the grandfather was responsible to maintain his grandchildren in absence of the father or on the inability, of the father to maintain his children."
Similarly, in another case Abdullah v. Jwaria Aslam, and 2 others, reported as 2004 YLR 616 [Lahore High Court], wherein it observed: "Even if the custody of minor is with mother, father or grandfather is bound to maintain sons, until they attain age of puberty and daughters; until they are married-Father or grandfather not bound to maintain adult" sons, unless disabled by infirmity or disease."
9. The petitioners failed to establish the fact that the respondents are in easy circumstances and they have some financial resources sufficient for them to meet their needs through firm, reliable, cohesive and trustworthy documentary as well as oral evidence. On the other hand, the petitioners having good financial resources and high status in the area, therefore, the petitioner No.2 has been rightly shouldered the responsibility of maintenance of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the ratio of maintenance as fixed by the learned Courts below is fair and reasonable.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand having no legal substance, therefore, it is dismissed in limine, being bereft of merits.