1. ' Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan was against an order of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, passed on 27-9-1992 by which he dismissed the appeal on account of failing to pay required amount of court-fee on it in time fixed by his Court.
2. ' Facts of the case and point of law respecting them were both simple and could be forthwith attended to. Mst. Asia Bibi was married to the petitioner on 21-10-1988. On 11-10-1989, a daughter was born to them. She was given the name of Asmat Bibi. Her birth proved a little unfortunate for her and her mother. Petitioner developed differences with his wife. Consequently, she left with the child, for her parents' home and brought a suit for maintenance for herself and the child against the petitioner in a Family Court at Sargodha. Separate maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs,500 per month each for the past thirteen months in respect of Mst. Asia Sibi and nine months for the child and also future maintenance at the same rate. Maintenance suit was instituted on 9-7- 1990. Petitioner contested his liability. On 18-3-1992, Family Court gave maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs,300 per month from the date of her birth on 11-10-1989, till her marriage and as regards Mst. Asia Bibi, her suit was dismissed. Learned counsel says that Mst. Asia Bibi was divorced in a Court decree. The decree has not been put on file. Therefore, date of divorce is not ascertainable from the existing record. Be that as it may, petitioner preferred an appeal from the decree of the Family Court to District Judge, Sargodha. His appeal was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, who on 28-7-1992 called upon him to pay deficit court-fee, in the sum of Rs,3,350 on memorandum of appeal till 20-9-1992. Learned Judge referred to a case reported in 1987 SCM R 1161 for supporting his action. Petitioner could not meet his liability by the due date.
3. Therefore, he petitioned for a further time. Learned Judge gave him time till 27-9-1992. Neither, the application for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee, nor the order made on it were put in. However, even by the extended time, petitioner did not deposit the required court-fee and submitted another application for further extending the time. It was stated that his area suffered inundation, and, therefore, he required time to collect funds for meeting the fiscal liability. Learned Judge did not agree with him and refused to further extend the time for payment of deficit court- fee and dismissed the appeal on its score. Against his decision, a petition in extraordinary jurisdiction has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel referred to cases reported in Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 1983 Lah. 383; Muhammad Khalil v. Mst. Zahida Perveen and others PLD 1991 Lah.
51. Former decision was not in point and the latter did not apply to the facts of the case before me.
4. Respondent No,2 claimed past as well as future maintenance. The primary Court gave her the maintenance at the rate of Rs,300 per month with effect from her date of birth i.e. 11-10-1989 till her marriage. Petitioner appealed without paying any court-fee on it. In terms of section 7, clauses (0,
(ii) read with Article 1, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the petitioner was obliged to pay ad valorem court-fee on the value of subject-matter in dispute in appeal, in the Court below. He was rquired to assess and pay court-fee on past as well as future maintenance in accordance with above-noted charging provision. Thus computed, the impugned order placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court did not suffer from any infirmity. Another decision from the post- partition Indian jurisdiction of East Punjab High Court reported in AIR 1961 Punjab 11 was much helpful. With respect, it enunciated the legal proposition correctly and I agree with it. Faced with the above, learned counsel had not much to urge and fell back on the request for further extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee in the Court below. I thought it inequitable and unjust also to entertain the prayer at this stage for harming the interests of a neglected minor child by her father, when she needed his care most. Even otherwise, learned Judge below had already treated the petitioner indulgently and there was no occasion to further pamper him. With the afore-noted statement of facts and law, there was no justification for interference by this Court. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.