1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--In a maintenance matter the only controversy now left for consideration in this leave to appeal petition relates to three questions which are essentially of fact:-
(1) Whether, maintenance for children has been awarded on the application of their mother (respondent No,3) who, as stated, has since been divorced after the grant of maintenance to her. If so; whether, it was permissible.
(ii) Whether admitted payments by the petitioner (husband) to the said respondent during the default period have been taken into account; and lastly,
(iii) Whether, the amount of maintenance has been correctly determined.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that while granting maintenance to the wife all her liabilities including the expenses on bringing up the children, whose custody is with her, were taken into account, and that, it was not a separate and independent application for the maintenance of the children. It is further argued that such approach in these matters, according to learned counsel, has been approved by this Court in Ghulam Bari v. Mst. Kanecz Begum and others 1968 SCMR 1432(2).
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner while being unable to contest the factual aspect' of the afore noticed argument of the learned counsel for the respondent expressed an apprehension that a separate application for maintenance of the children might now be filed which would put the petitioner in double jeopardy. Although the learned counsel for the respondent, when asked to clarify his client's position, to start with hesitated to take a firm stand, subsequently after consulting his client categorically stated that no such application will be moved for the maintenance of the children.
4. ' On the second question after some discussion both the learned counsel agreed that the payments of Rs,9,100 made by the petitioner to respondent No,3 shall be given adjustment when the maintenance is realised.
5. ' The last point relates to the determination of the amount for maintenance. It is one of fact and stands concluded, by a reduction of doubtful validity but it having gone in favour of the petitioner and there being no challenge from respondent's side in this behalf we would not like to make any further comment.
6. None of the points raised has any force. Leave to appeal with the foregoing observations, therefore, is refused.