1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5-4-1994, whereby Writ Petition No, 232 of 1994 filed by petitioner to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the Family Court, Kahuta and District Judge, Rawalpindi dated 26-3-1993 and 9-12-1993 respectively, was dismissed.
2. ' Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed suits against the petitioners for recovery of maintenance before the Judge, Family Court, Kahuta. The petitioner divorced respondent No,3 (who was his wife) during the proceedings. The Family Judge allowed Rs,1,800 as maintenance to respondent No,3 including the period for 'Iddat'. Respondents 4 and 5 were also allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs,300 each from 15-1-1991. The petitioner first challenged the order of Family Court before the District Judge in appeal which failed and thereafter, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court to challenge the decision of Family Court and the District Judge which too met the same fate. The petitioner has now come before this Court to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court.
3. ' Mr. Munir Peracha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the Courts below failed to take into account that respondents 4 and 5 being major and living apart from the petitioner without reasonable cause were not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner (their father). The learned counsel contended that there was no dispute regarding the ages of respondents 4 and 5 which was admitted by respondent No,3 in her statement before the trial Court as 22 and 16 years respectively.
4. It is true that the ages of respondents Nos.4 and 5 were stated to be 22 and 16 years respectively by respondent No,3 in her statement before the trial Court and as such both were major. But, no issue was framed in the case to the effect that respondents 4 and 5 were living without any reasonable cause apart from the petitioner, their father. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner raised any such plea 9r insisted for framing of such an issue in the case. The learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, rightly refused to interfere with the order of District Judge, in exercise of his Constitutional jurisdiction, as this aspect of the case related to the determination of a factual controversy in the case for which there was no material available before the Court. No case for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.