' The question which falls for determination in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is as to whether pending the decision of a suit for maintenance the Family Court can direct the father of a minor to provide maintenance to him.
2. The circumstances in which this question arises are that on 26-7-1994 a suit for recovery of maintenance was filed by Mst. Sughran Bibi respondent No,1 the wife of the petitioner and Mustafa, the son of the parties. During the pendency of the suit an application was moved by respondents Nos.1 and 2 averring that respondent No,2 was suffering from chronic illness and his treatment entails a lot of expenditure which respondent No,2 was unable to bear. It was prayed in the application that interim maintenance for respondent No,2 may be fixed. That application was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the Family Court on 8-6-1995. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs,600 per month as interim maintenance allowance to Muhammad Mustafa subject to adjustment at the time of final decision of the suit. In order to protect the rights of the petitioner respondents Nos.1 and 2 were also asked to furnish security to the effect that in case their suit is dismissed they shall refund the amount received by them.
3. In support of this petition petitioner's learned counsel has contended that there is no jurisdiction vesting in the Family Court to direct the payment of any interim maintenance as there is no specific provision in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 empowering it to pass such an order.
4. This contention of the learned counsel has no force. It is true that there is no specific provision in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for grant of any maintenance during the pendency of a suit but it does not mean that the Court is powerless to pass such an order as and if justice of the situation requires. It is settled principle of law that if a Court or Tribunal has the authority to pass a final order it can also pass an interim order unless the power to do so is expressly or impliedly excluded. See Zafar Iqbal v. The Province of Sindh and others PLD 1973 Kar. 383, Molvi Muhammad Yaqub v. Chairman, Election Tribunal PLD 1976 SC 626, Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution and another v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 32 and Commissioner, Khairpur Division, Khairpur and another v. Ali Sher Sarki PLD 1971 SC 242.
5. It is also to be seen that the Family Court while hearing suits under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 acts as a Court and is not a persona designata. There is an inherent jurisdiction vesting in any Court to pass such interim orders as may become necessary in the circumstances of a given case. There is nothing in the Family Courts Act, 1964 from which it could even remotely be inferred that the Court is denuded of its power to pass an interim order. It is trite law that all procedures which are not prohibited by a statute must be taken to be permissible and the Court should not proceed on the assumption that there should be a specific provision for exercise of any power. Such an interpretation hampers the cause of justice.
6. It is a matter of common knowledge that even suits filed under the Family Courts Act, 1964 are not decided within days but on the other hand the trial is generally delayed for one reason or the other and matter lasts for months if not years. There may be a case where the mother of the minor has no means whatsoever to provide even bare minimum necessities of life or even-sustenance. In these circumstances, to hold that the Court is powerless to come to the aid of the minor would be a negation of justice. Furthermore it cannot be denied that both under the statutory law as also the Islamic principles of personal law the father is obliged to provide maintenance to his child. That being so there is no reason as to why the payment of maintenance must be delayed till the matter is finally decided' by the Court. In the present case it was alleged in the application for interim relief that the minor child was suffering from serious ailment and his treatment required a lot of expenses which the mother of the minor was unable to bear. Keeping in view this fact there was ample justification for the Family Court to have directed payment of Rs,600 per month as interim maintenance subject to adjustment at the time of final decision of the suit.
' This petition is found to be without any force and is dismissed in limine.