' Through this Constitutional petition Muhammad Aslam has called in question judgments, dated 25-7-2001 and 17-11-2001, respectively passed by Judge, Family Court, Lodhran (respondent No,2) and District Judge, Lodhran (respondent No,1) whereby suit for maintenance filed by respondents Nos.3 to 6 was decreed and appeal against that judgment, filed by the writ petitioners, was dismissed.
2. Although as many as six grounds are mentioned in the petition for assailing the impugned judgments but at the very outset, learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that he does not press any ground except ground No,(iv) which relates to quantum of maintenance. The learned counsel states that the writ petitioner is willing to pay maintenance but urged that quantum of maintenance allowance may be reduced.
3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 6, however, opposed the said proposition and argued that maintenance allowance fixed by the Court was not excessive and the same was fixed by the Family Court after proper assessm ent, evaluation and appraisal of evidence available on record regarding the means of the writ petitioner.
4. A perusal of evidence coupled with the impugned judgments reveals that finding of the learned Family Court with respect to the monthly income of the writ petitioner is based on evidence. It was proved that the writ petitioner is a commission agent in vegetable market and in the year 1999 he had obtained two shops in the said market from Municipal Committee in public auction being the highest bidder and that his monthly income was not less than Rs,10,000.
5. Maintenance allowance for the wife (respondent. No,3) was fixed at the rate of Rs,1,000 while that of the minor children (respondents Nos.4 to 6) Was fixed at the rate of Rs,500 per month which cannot be deemed as excessive.
6. Assessm ent of evidence or to determine the amount of maintenance is the function of the Family Court which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters; powers of High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction are not analogous to those of an Appellate Court. It can declare an order passed by Family Court as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence but cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Family Court by reducing the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the Family Court. No legal infirmity or jurisdictional error could be pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Family Court and the Appellate Court, justifying interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.