' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-1991, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 28-3-1991, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner for maintenance against her father, respondent No,1 herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Umar Hayat, respondent No,1, was married to Mst. Rashida Khatoon. The relations between the spouses became strained. Respondent No,1 allegedly turned the mother of the petitioner from his house and contracted second marriage. Out of the wedlock Mst. Farhat Naz, petitioner herein was born on 3-11-1974. Inconsequence, Mst. Farhat Naz, petitioner herein, instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month for the last fourteen years. The suit was resisted by respondent No,1. The learned Judge Family Court, Mianwali, vide judgment dated 28-3-1991, dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner ever since her birth remained with her mother till her death and that the mother of the petitioner was a serving lady. She never claimed maintenance on behalf of the petitioner till her death and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. This finding was re-affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 6-7-1991. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The findings of the trial Court on Issue No,3 were maintained by the lower appellate Court.
3. Mr. Awan Muhammad Hanif, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and others (PLD 1991 SC 543); Nadir Khan v. Zeenat Bibi and others (1990 CLC 293); Muhammad Ihsan v. Muhammad Imran and others (PLD 1993 Lah. 358); Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Ijaz Ali Khan v. Mst. Shaheen and 2 others (1993 CLC 2088) and Ghulam Khan v. The District Judge, Gujrat and 2 others (1990 SCMR 136), to contend that under the Muhammadan Law it is the duty of the father to maintain his A daughter till her marriage. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to rebut the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner or cite any law to support .The judgments of the lower Courts.
' In view of the above, the impugned judgments of the Courts below are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Mianwali for trying the suit afresh on merits on the basis of evidence already recorded by the parties and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Mianwali, on 11-11-1993. The writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs.