' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30th January, 1989, whereby his writ petition against the order of the District Judge, Gujrat dated 3rd July, 1986 was dismissed.
2. On the application of respondent No, 2, (i.e. Daughter of the petitioner) before the Judge Family Court, an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner vide order dated 12th January, 1976.
The said decree was amended by the said Court on the application of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner would pay 2/7th share of the produce from the land to his wife and his daughter whereas the rest of 5/7th share the petitioner himself will get and he would also arrange from his own pocket for the marriage of Mst. Ameer Bibi daughter of the petitioner. It was also ordered that the petitioner would pay 1/7th of his income from the land to Mst. Rasoolan Bibi respondent No, 3 after the marriage of respondent No,2, vide compromise decree dated 20th July, 1978.
3. On failure on the part of the petitioner to pay 1/7th share of income of his land to respondent No,2 she filed an execution application before the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, which was resisted by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, vide his order dated 16th March, 1986, dismissed the said application. On appeal filed by the respondent No,2 the learned District Judge Gujrat vide his order dated 3rd July, 1988 accepted the appeal, set aside the order under appeal of the Civil Judge and remitted the execution application to the Executing Court for its execution according to law. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the said appellate order before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the responsibility of the father for the maintenance of his daughter ends when she refuses to marry throughout her life. The learned counsel also urged that a marriage is a 'Sunnah' and he who refuses to marry, according to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is not amongst us. In the instant case the daughter of the petitioner has based her refusal to marry merely on the ground that she is to look after her old ailing mother. The law is very clear on the subject that the daughter is to be maintained by her father till her marriage. The reason given by the respondent No, 2 for not marrying in the lifetime of her old ailing mother is quite genuine because there is every likelihood that after some time when this disability on her part is removed and the circumstances become conducive, she may change her idea and get herself married -then the petitioner will be automatically exonerated from her liability.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the contention raised by him has no force which calls for any interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.