' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Mst. Razia Begum filed a suit against the petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and for three minor children from September. 1982 onwards. After contest, the suit was dismissed by the Judge, Family Court, Jhelum, by judgment, dated 15-3-1988. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Jhelum reversed the decree passed by the trial Court and allowed maintenance to the minor children from the date of the institution of the suit onwards. Still aggrieved, the respondents filed a constitutional petition and prayed for an order for grant of past maintenance from September, 1982. The learned Judge in Chamber allowed the petition and awarded maintenance w.c.f. 3-9-1982. The petitioner has questioned this judgment in this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on a judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 596 in support of his submission that past maintenance could not be granted, wherein relying on the Hedaya (Hamilton's Second Edition, page 149), Bailic's Muslim Law Third Impression, 1957, page 460 and Urdu translation of Durral Mukhtar by Maulvi Khurram Ali, it was observed at page 599 of the report as follows:- "It also seems clear from the authorities on Hanafi Law that neither the child nor the person who maintains it can claim past maintenance from the father unless the same has been previously fixed either by a decree of the Court or by the father himself. This proposition seems to flow from the propositions mentioned in the preceding paragraph and is supported by the exposition of the law relating to maintenance in the textbooks"
' The learned counsel further submitted that the cases relied upon by the learned Judge in the High Court are distinguishable, inasmuch as in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Bcgum and 3 others (PLD 1972 SC 302) the order for past maintenance passed by the Arbitration Council was not disturbed by this Court, but in the present case, even the Additional District Judge did not pass any order for past maintenance. It is also submitted that the High Court exceeded its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
3. The above submissions, inter alia, require consideration. We would, therefore, grant leave.
Security Rs,2,500.
4. Stay on furnishing security for the amount of past maintenance, i.e,,September, 1982 to the date of the suit.