By invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the legality of judgment, dated 6-10-1999 passed by learned I-Additional District Judge, Central Karachi in Family Appeal No.25 of 1999 maintaining the judgment, dated 18- 2-1999 and decree, dated 11-3-1999 of IX-Civil and Family Judge, Central Karachi in Suit No.598 of 1997 whereby the suit was decreed and maintenance allowance of Master Sheharyar, the respondent No.3 who happens to be son of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1,500 per month from birth upto the age of 5 years and thereafter at Rs.2,000 per month with 10% yearly increase till the age of 18 years or the date he comes in the custody of petitioner.
2. The child namely Master Sheharyar, the respondent No.3, was born on 16-9-1996 out of wedlock of petitioner Danish Hussain and Mst. Naheed Almas but unfortunately the petitioner divorced the mother of respondent No.3 on 9-9-1996. The petitioner was informed about the birth of child and was asked to pay maintenance but he. failed to do so. therefore, the aforementioned suit was filed in which the petitioner filed his written statement and after framing the issues the parties led evidence. The learned Family Court decreed the suit fixing the maintenance allowance as mentioned above which has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly, and erroneously presumed that the petitioner being an Advocate having five years standing at the Bar was capable of paying the maintenance for his son, the respondent No.3, at Rs.1,500 per month.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. It is stated in ground No.5 of this petition that the child namely respondent No.3 is living in a joint family, therefore, a bare amount of Rs.500 would be sufficient for his maintenance. During the course of argument's, on being questioned by the Court, learned counsel for petitioner expressed that Rs.500 per month will be sufficient for the child or at the most Rs.700 to Rs.800 per month. As a matter of fact the learned counsel was asked if she could prepare a list of articles for the daily use of a child of 4 years age that could be purchased for Rs.500 or say Rs.800 in a month. Learned counsel could not furnish a satisfactory reply but emphasized that in fact on legal plane the matter is to be examined on the basis of'income of the father of child irrespective of the cost of living of the child. On going through the deposition of petitioner 'recorded in the Trial Court it transpired that the petitioner admitted in his evidence that he has not disclosed his previous income. Further, he denied the suggestion that he owns Office No.616, Floor Centre Karachi but voluntarily stated that he used it as his office, although it was not his personal office. He admitted that the office accommodation is well-furnished and air-conditioned and that one Mr. lqbal, Advocate is also working part-time with him without cost (perhaps without payment). He denied the suggestion that his income is about Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000. He admitted that he has got a car, but explained that the car belongs to his mother.
5. The above facts reveal the status of the petitioner and as such it would be a rightful claim on the part of child, the respondent No.3 to have his due maintenance looking to the standard of his father. It cannot be understood what lavish expenditure can be made from the maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500 by the child or his mother which in these days would hardly be sufficient to meet his bare necessities. The learned Trial Court has fully adverted to the evidence on record and assessed the same in true perspective, therefore, the .appellate Court was wholly justified in not interfering with the same. While deciding Constitutional petition as held in Shah Johan v. Amjad Ali, Hawaldar 2000 SCM R 88 this Court is not supposed to substitute its own decision for that of Court, otherwise it is felt, in all earnest, that even maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500 per month in the metropolitan city of Karachi is hardly upto the standard of the son of a well-to-do Advocate.
6. On the whole the findings of both the Courts call for no interference, the petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. These are the reasons for the short order announced on 14-11- 2000.