' The petitioner being aggrieved of a decree, dated 23-12-1998 passed by a learned Judge Family Court at Rawalpindi in a suit for the payment of maintenance allowance through judgment, dated 23-12-1998 which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, in an appeal through judgment, dated 16-10-1999 has preferred this Constitutional petition questioning the quantum of maintenance allowance without contesting the judgment and decree on merits. The respondent namely Dr. Sabira Sultana claimed maintenance allowance the rate of Rs,12,000 per month for herself and for her son namely Talah Mehr with effect from March, 1991, but the learned Civil Judge granted decree for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month each to respondent and her minor son for the period of three years prior to the date of institution of the suit on 25-3-1993 and further Dr. Sabira Sultana was allowed maintenance allowance at the same rate during the existence of marriage whereas the minor son was allowed maintenance allowance till attaining the age of majority. The petitioner being dissatisfied has impugned the quantum of maintenance allowance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the statement of P.W.2 Mst. Sabira Sultana respondent herein contended that her admission that an amount of Rs,6,000 was paid to her by the petitioner in the year 1994 and another amount of Rs,2,000 was paid to her at Eid occasion would show that she was regularly being maintained by the petitioner till 1994. He next contended that as per statement of the said respondent, she was not being maintained by the respondent two years prior to the date of her making statement in the Court on 23-6-1998 but the learned trial Court while misreading the evidence decreed the suit for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner being jobless in U.K. Was not in a position to make payment of such a heavy amount as maintenance allowance to the respondents and the learned trial Court without ascertaining the financial position of the petitioner granted the decree for maintenance allowance to the respondents at the rate of Rs,5,000 each which was beyond the reach of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the present petition who are petitioners in the connected writ petition argued that sufficient material is available on record to show that the petitioner failed to discharge his duty of maintaining the respondents and that occasional payment of a petty amount would not be an evidence of regular payment of maintenance allowance. He submitted that the petitioner has not been able to bring on record any evidence of making payment of maintenance allowance to the respondent who resided either in Karachi or at Rawalpindi when the petitioner was in U.K.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the evidence in detail. I have not been able to find out any misreading of evidence either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. The respondent claimed that in the year 1994, he sent a cheque of Rs,6,000 and also paid another amount of Rs,2,000 through cheque to the respondents at Eid occasion and after that he, did not show even that much courtesy to the respondents at any such occasion. The respondent in her statement categorically stated that she was not maintained since marriage and Zahoor Aftab. P.W.2 a cousin of respondent has stated that the petitioner did not maintain the respondent since 1993. The statement of the respondent being fully corroborated by the statement of Zahoor Ahmad P.W.2 remained unchallenged either through direct or circumstantial evidence.
The petitioner did not himself appear in the witness-box and was being represented through a special attorney who while supporting the version of the petitioner could not dislodge the claim of the respondent lady based on her direct knowledge. The special attorney of the petitioner having no direct knowledge was not in a position to make a statement in rebuttal, therefore, his evidence was of no value.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the concurrent finding of fact through a Constitutional Petition and this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot disturb the concurrent finding of fact through appraisal of evidence unless it is established that the judgment was suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed in limine.