Mst. Hussain Bibi filed a suit for maintenance for herself as well as for her minor daughter Mst.
Qura-tul-Ain Aqsa respondent No,1 before the Judge Family Court. Khushab on 30-10-1997 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the maintenance allowance prayed for? OPP.
(2) Relief.
The learned Judge Family Court dismissed the suit for maintenance of Mst. Hussain Bibi mother of the respondent No,1 but accepted the suit for maintenance to the extent of respondent No,1 and granted Rs,500 per month from the date of institution of the suit and at the same rate for future till respondent No,1 attained the age of majority or her custody is handed over to the petitioner by competent Court vide judgment and hence dated 9-3-1999. hence the present writ petition. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that judgment of the Judge Family Court is result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further stated that maintenance awarded to respondent No,1 is beyond the resources of the petitioner and the petitioner is not in position to pay this much maintenance to respondent No,1 as the resources of the petitioner very meagre.
2. The learned counsel of the respondents stated that Judge Family Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. He further stated that Judge Family Court after appreciation of evidence has fixed a very meagre maintenance amounting to Rs,500 per month.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is father of respondent No, 1 . It is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to maintain of respondent No,
1. It is also admitted fact that Judge Family Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision ' of the Tribunals below as the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Massadaq's. case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). Even otherwise the maintenance awarded by the petitioner is very meagre amounting to Rs:500. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, therefore. writ petition, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.