' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No,3 on 21-1-1998. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No,3 a daughter namely Sana Liaqat was born out. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No,2 became strained. Petitioner filed a suit for conjugal rights before the Judge Family Court, Lahore. Respondent No,3 filed subsequent following three suits against the petitioner:--
(i) Suit for maintenance.
(ii) Suit for maintenance.
(iii) Suit for recovery of dower before the Judge Family Court, Lahore.
' Petitioner filed written statement controverted the allegations leveled in the plaint.
2. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Judge Family Court framed the following issues-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is mala fide ? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover maintenance allowance from the defendant? If so, to what extent? OPP
(iv) Relief.
' The Judge Family Court decreed the suit of the respondents Nos,3 and 4 vide judgment and decree, dated 12-4-1993 and fixed the allowance to respondent No,4 Rs,1,000 as maintenance allowance per month from the date of her birth till the passing of the next order and also granted maintenance allowance to respondent No,3 since May, 1988 Rs,1,000 as maintenance allowance per month to be paid by the petitioner from May, 1988 till passing of the decree. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 12-2-1996. Hence the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,3 left the house of the petitioner of her sweet-will without consent of the petitioner. He further submits that in the suit filed by the petitioner respondent No,3 failed to prove that the petitioner behavior was cruel towards the respondent No,3 as is admitted in her statement in cross-examination. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgment:-- "Mst. Rashim Bibi's case" PLD 1967 Azad J&K 32.
' He further submits that there was no previous agreement between the petitioner and respondent No,3. Therefore, she is not entitled any past maintenance as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments.-- "Syed Hamid Ali Shah's case" 1991 CLC 766.
"Mst. Ghulam Fatima's case' PLD 1958 Lahore 596.
"Mst. Maryam Bibi and others' case" PLD 1976 Azad J&K 9.
' He further submits that respondent No,3 got the dissolution on the ground of Khula'. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Nazir Ahmad's case" 1991 MLD 1154.
"Said Rasul Khan's case" 1991 MLD 1732.
"Mst. Parveen Bibi's case" 1993 MLD 433.
"Mst. Hafeezan Bibi's case" 1995 MLD 136.
' He further submits that respondent No,3 has admitted in suit filed by, her for dissolution of marriage that petitioner did not do any work and did not return anything. Therefore, maintenance allowance fixed by both. The Courts below is very excess and the petitioner is not in a position to pay Rs,2,000 per month to respondents Nos.3 and 4 as the income of the petitioner is not more than Rs,1,000 per month.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner and the writ petition is not maintainable, He further submits that evidence recorded by the Judge Family Court in the suits filed by the respondent No,3 cannot be read as an integral part of this suit as the same were not produced or recorded before the Judge Family Court at the time of deciding suit for maintenance allowance. He further submits that respondent No,3 is not entitled past maintenance. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Dost Muhammad's case" PLD 1985 Lahore 340.
"Mst. Tahira Begum's case PLD 1971 Lahore 866.
"Ghulam Nabi's case" PLD 1991 SC 443.
"Mst. Bibi Musarat's case" 1990 CLC 1908.
"Said Rasool Khan's case" 1991 MLD 1732.
' He further submits on the basis of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the past maintenance even after the dissolution of marriage but the respondent filed suit for maintenance during the subsistence of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,3. He further submits that both the Courts below have fixed maintenance Rs,2,000 per month. He further submits that respondent No,3 has not solemnized second marriage whereas the petitioner has solemnized second marriage. He further submits that judgment of both the Courts below are in accordance with law. Respondent No,3 is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner after obtaining decree in the suit filed by her for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Iftikhar Ahmad's case" 1988 CLC 2355.
' He further submits that suit for dissolution of the respondent No,3 was decreed on the ground of Khula'. He summed up his arguments that petitioner is living in house situated in the locality of Model Town and the price of the house is more than two crore and he is earning Rs,12,000 per month.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuttal submits that contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that income of the petitioner is more than 10/12 thousand is not correct as the respondent failed to bring on record any evidence to prove income of the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence on Issue No,4. Both the Courts below have given findings of fact that income of petitioner is Rs,8,000 to Rs,10,000. Similarly both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that respondent No,3 had not left the house of petitioner of her own sweet-will. She left the house of petitioner on account of maltreatment by petitioner. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner that petitioner failed to maintain respondents Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner's counsel heavily relied upon the aforesaid judgments on question of law that respondent No,3/ex-wife of petitioner is not entitled to get past maintenance that the law cited by petitioner's counsel is distinguished on facts and law. It is settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. As mentioned above, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner but the petitioner's counsel did not point out any piece of evidence which was misread by both the Courts below but he relied upon the evidence recorded in connected suit for conjugal rights, which is not part and parcel of the present controversy; hence the evidence in other case is not relevant to resolve the controversy between the parties in the present case. As mentioned above Courts below had concurrently found that husband neglected to maintain his wife and had thus, violated his duty which a Muslim husband was under obligation to perform. Husband having neglected his wife in her maintenance, she was entitled to past maintenance allowance as per principle laid down in Muhammad Nawaz's case (PLD 1972 SC 302); and Bibi Mussarat's case (1990 CLC 1908). It is also settled proposition of law that maintenance to wife by husband is not ex gratia grant, husband is obliged to maintain his wife, wife is entitled to past maintenance even after obtaining decree for dissolution of-marriage on basis of B Khula' as principle laid down by this Court in Iftikhar Ahmad's case (1988 CLC 2355). It is also settled proposition of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings of fact by tribunal below, in arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by Khuda Bakhsh's case (1974 SCMR 279) and Muhammad Rehman Bajwa's case (PLD 1981 SC 522).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.