' In this writ petition, judgment dated 25-4-1998 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Okara has been challenged, whereby, maintenance allowance of Rs,500 was allowed to each of the minor children till the children attained majority or their custody was transferred to the petitioner/defendant.
2. The finding of the learned Judge Family Court is assailed on the ground that two of the minors namely Irshad Hussain and Muhamamd Asrar were majors and were earning livelihood at Karachi and as such, were not entitled to the maintenance; secondly the past maintenance could not be allowed; thirdly the amount of monthly maintenance was excessive keeping in view the poor financial position of the petitioner/defendant; and lastly there being no adequate and efficacious remedy available, the Constitutional jurisdcition of this Court was invoked.
3. I have considered the above submissions and have also gone through the material placed on record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the ,petitioner. In fact respondent No,1 i,e, Mst.
Jatti, wife of the petitioner, had instituted a suit for maintenance for herself and her minor children named therein as respondents Nos.2 to 5. The learned trial Judge disallowed the maintenance allowance to the wife on the ground that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decided in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the wife had no right to live apart and claim for maintenance. However, the maintenance allowance for children was allowed as pointed out above. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the children named above had become majors has nowhere been controverted and as such, it would be believed that since they were majors, therefore, were not entitled to maintenance allowance. This contention appears to be against the record because the plaintiff/respondent Mst. Jatti while appearing as P.W.1 had clearly stated that all the children were minors and were in her custody and had filed a suit through her. This also negates the contention that two of the children namely Irshad Hussain and Muhamamd Asrar were residing at Karachi and were earning for themselves being majors. A suggestion to that effect was specifically denied by the aforesaid witness during the cross- examination. Even cross-examination of the petitioner/defendant shows that all the four children were residing with (Sic) call for interference being a question of fact in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is well-established that a forum which has jurisdiction to decide a question of fact, may decide the same rightly or wrongly but it would not call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction in view of provisions Contained in sections 5 and 20 read with the A Schedule under the Family Court Act, 1964 to decide the matter regarding the maintenance to be allowed to the children. In the instant case, the learned Judge Family Court after taking into account the evidence brought on record has rightly invoked his jurisdiction to grant the impugned maintenance allowance which does not call for interference.
' The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.