1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Respondent No. 1 wife of the petitioner, made an application under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahore, for maintenance. On the 2nd May 1970, the application was amended and the minor daughters were also added as applicants. The petitioner denied the allegations of desertion and expressed his willingness and anxiety to maintain the respondents according to their status provided respondent No. 1 would forego the luxury of residing in Lahore and agree to live in their own house in Chak No. 22/G. B. The learned Magistrate decided the case in absence pf the petitioner passed an ex parte order under, section 488, Cr. P. C. Directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 400 per mensem as maintenance to the respondent with effect from the 9th November 1968, by his order dated the 24th March 1971. The matter was taken in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge reduced the amount of maintenance but upheld the order of the Magistrate. The matter was taken to the High Court in revision which was dismissed on the 4th August 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Magistrate was not competent to award arrears of maintenance under section 488, Cr. P. C. The contention of the learned counsel is unfounded because the Magistrate concerned has awarded the maintenance from the date of the application. The mere fact that some children of the respondent were added on the 2nd May 1970, was no ground to award the maintenance from that date It was further contended that the Magistrate concerned has exercised his discretion improperly. The petitioner is a villager and has serious objection to his daughters being educated in English school. In our opinion, this ground has no substance. All the aspects of the case were considered by the Courts below and they were right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has deserted his wife and children. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.