1. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Hafeezur Rehman, petitioner herein, was married to Mst. Najma Bano alias Najma, respondent No.1 in 1991, and out of the wedlock two children namely Baby Samaya Bano aged 4-1/2 years and Baby Naila Parveen aged 2-1/2 years, respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively were born. Their relations thereafter became strained and because of inhuman treatment of the petitioner the respondent was forced to live with her parents.
2. It was on 28-6-1998 that respondent No.1 (wife) instituted the suit for maintenance. However, the trial Court decided the suit in favour of the respondents by allowing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month and Rs.3,000 per month for respondents Nos.2 and 3 as further maintenance together with delivery expenses of Rs.3,000.
3. Aggrieved by the said order/judgment the petitioner has assailed the judgment of Family Court by filing the Appeal No.1 of 1999 before the learned District Judge, which was sent to the Court of III- Additional District Judge, Sukkur and after due hearing of the said appeal the appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 3.
4. The petitioner has assailed the findings of the two Courts below by filing this petition and has prayed that impugned judgments and decree being without lawful authority are, therefore, liable to be set aside in view of the judgment and decree passed in Suit No.36 of 1993.
5. Mr. G.M.K. Durrani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shaikh Fazal Din, learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. I have also gone through the impugned judgments carefully.
6. During the arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner referred to the following case-law:--
(1) PLD 1961 Pesh. 66, (2) 1991 CLC 739, (3) 1987 SCMR 670, (4) PLD 1985 AJ&K 212 (5) AIR 1929 All. 236 and (6) 1995 CLC 327.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Fazal Din, learned counsel for the respondents cited the following authorities.
(1) 1997 MLD 2655, (2) 1999 SCMR 2331, (3) PLD 1991 SC 543, and (4) 1998 SCMR 457.
8. It may be stated at the very outset that the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has failed to convince the Court that the trial Court or appellate Court, have committed some illegality or material irregularity in deciding the suit or the appeal.
9. The respondent No.1 appeared through her father and attorney and the evidence so recorded has gone unchallenged as despite chance was given for cross-examination but not a single question has been put in rebuttal. Even prior to Talaq the respondents were residing in the house of parents of respondent No. 1 and are being maintained by them. It is obvious that till today the petitioner has not paid any amount for maintenance to the respondents.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the same authorities, which were cited in the appellate Court, and similar grounds as taken in the lower Court have been raised in her defence, while arguing this petition. The trial Court and appellate Court have properly evaluated rather appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and have given valid reasons in their conclusions. Since the judgment of the Family Court is neither arbitrary/perverse nor suffers from any jurisdictional error, therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the same by exercising extraordinary powers under , Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which, of course, can be exercised only in exceptional cases.
11. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner's plea, but it favours the respondents. The fundamental rights have been deprived by the petitioner, and therefore, judgments of the lower Courts cannot be set aside on rescinded in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
12. The petitioner did not change his attitude towards the respondent No.1 and she was dragged in the Court by filing Family Suit No.36 of 1993 which was compromised on undertaking of the petitioner that he will pay an amount of Rs.300 per month and thereafter the respondent No.1 joined the petitioner but the petitioner even failed to fulfil the promise and undertaking before the Court and failed to pay the amount of Rs.300 per month, but on the contrary, the petitioner made the life of respondent miserable by cruelty of conduct and left her at the house of her parents and did not challenge the version of the respondents. The petitioner has not taken any plea of his weak financial position the respondent No.1 was under no obligation to prove otherwise, therefore, the amount of maintenance for three souls worked out by the trial Court is reasonable together with delivery charges of Rs.3,000 instead of Rs.50,000.
13. The petitioner has urged the similar pleas and case-law, which were taken by him in the appellate Court. The cited authorities are not applicable in the present circumstances in favour of the petitioner. The judgments of the lower Courts are maintained. A father is bound to maintain his sons and daughters until they attain the age of puberty or daughters are married.
14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed without any order as to the costs.