1. This is a revision application against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the revision application against the order of the Additional City Magistrate Court No. 17 was dismissed.
2. Mst. Athar Jehan was the wife of Mujtaba Hussain and a child was born. She had filed an application under section 488, Cr. P. C. against her husband in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Karachi and Rs. 50 p.m. were fixed as maintenance and an allowance of Rs. 25 p.m. was fixed for the child by order dated 19th April 1963. Since Mujtaba Hussain failed to pay the main - tenance awarded by the learned Magistrate she made an applica tion on 1-5-68 under section 488 (3), Cr. P. C. claiming Rs. 3,300 as arrears. The learned Magistrate, however, ordered an amount of Rs. 1,000 to be paid for period ending 8th July 1967. Against this order a revision application was filed and it was dismissed. Consequently the present revision application has been filed.
3. The only ground which has been taken before me is that the learned Magistrate had no power to direct the payment of the arrears of maintenance after the enforcement of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act as this jurisdiction exclusively vested in the Family Court constituted under the Act.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for Mujtaba Hussain is not without force. Section 5 of the Act clearly confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Family Court constituted under the Act to entertain, hear and adjudicate the matters Specified in the Schedule. Referring to the schedule it would be found that one of the matters described therein relates to the maintenance. This point is fully settled by the authority of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1969 SC 187. Similar question has arisen before my learned brother Muhammad Haleem, J. and his Lordship also held that such an application could only be entertained by the Family Court and Magistrate had no powers to order the recovery of the arrears of maintenance. This case is' reported in PLD 1971 Kar. 759 and Sind & Baluchistan Repor ter, Kar.
10. Even section 20 of the Act authorises the Government to invest any Judge of the Family Court with the powers of the Magistrate of 1st Class to make order for maintenance under sec tion 488, Cr. P. C. Thus the power having been vested in the Family Courts the learned Additional City Magistrate could noten- tertain the application and, therefore, his order is not sustainable. The argument of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that since the original power for maintenance was passed in April 1963 the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate was not barred, has no force. It is immaterial whether an application is made for the fixation of maintenance or the order already passed to fix the maintenance is Sought to be enforced. In both the cases the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate is ousted and the relief can only be sought from the Family Court.
5. In the result, I allow the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge and direct that the application made by Mst. Athar Jehatt claiming the arrears of maintenance be returned to her to be presented to the Family Court having jurisdiction. .