' The petitioner is the lather of respondents 2 to 5 while respondent No,1 is his wife. A suit for recovery of maintenance was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 5 through their mother Mst. Anwaran Bibi against the petitioner. It appears that during the course of the hearing, the parties agreed to refer dispute regarding maintenance to Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan, Manager, Agricultural Development Bank, Jaranwala on 11th October, 1989 he appeared before the Family Court and presented his report according to which the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs,300 per month for each of the children. The Family Court acting on the statement and report of Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan Manager, Agricultural Development Bank proceeded to decree the suit for maintenance directing the petitioner to pay Rs,1,200 for the four minors from the date of filing of the suit. This decree of the Family Court was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was however, dismissed on 6th March, 1990. Hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Rana Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Advocate for the petitioner firstly contended that the petitioner never agreed to have the dispute settled through Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan, Manager, Agricultural Development Bank. This contention of the learned counsel is not borne out from the record. In the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court no such plea was raised but on the other hand it was asserted that the referee had proceeded to decide the dispute without any notice to the petitioner.
3. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner had been condemned unheard by the Referee as well as by the Family Court. This contention of the learned counsel, is again devoid of any force. It is clear from the report of the referee that he had heard both the parties whereafter, he concluded that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs,300 per month to each of the child. Similarly when the matter was decided by the Family Court on 11th October, 1989, the petitioner had appeared in person and the order was passed in his presence.
4. The last submission of the learned counsel was that the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,200 per month is excessive and the rate of maintenance be suitably reduced. It is however to be seen that the petitioner had himself agreed to have the dispute decided through the intervention of Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan, who after taking into consideration the entire facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs,300 per month to each of the child.
The ages of the minors, according to the learned counsel range between 7 and 14/15 years and Rs,300 per month to each child cannot be termed as excessive. The petitioner being father of the minors is bound to suitably maintain his children.
There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.