' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17-5-2001, whereby Writ Petition No,12626 of 2000 of the petitioner was disposed of as under:-- ' "Learned counsel for respondent does not object to this arrangement. Accordingly the petitioner shall deposit Rs,10,000 before the Ist of June, 2001, Rs,9,000 as arrears of maintenance and Rs,1,000 as current maintenance. He shall deposit the same amount monthly for the next 9 months.
Thereafter he shall deposit Rs,2,000 in the 10 months. The arrears of maintenance shall be deposited with the learned trial Court and thereafter the petitioner shall send money order for the ongoing maintenance of the minors, as long as they are entitled to receive the same under the law."
2. Resume of the case is that on 11-2-1999 respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 instituted a suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner before Judge Family Court, Gojra. The suit was contested by the petitioner and was decreed by the Judge Family Court vide his judgment dated 16-3-2000 as under:-- ' "In the light of findings given under each issue the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. They shall get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,1,000 + Rs,500 + Rs,500, respectively from January, 1997. Plaintiff No,1 shall get this maintenance allowance till 1st July, 1999 while plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 shall get this maintenance allowance till attaining the age of majority and till the marriage, respectively. The defendant is burdened with costs of this suit. File be consigned to general record room after completing and arranging it in all respects."
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dated 29-4-2000 with the modification in the period of past maintenance. The petitioner called in question the validity of the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ Petition No,12629 of 2000, which was disposed of as stated in para.1 above.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. It is evident from the impugned order of the High Court that the petitioner had agreed to the arrangement of payment of arrears of maintenance and the maintenance of the children in the manner given in the impugned order. After acceptance of such an arrangement and agreeing to pay the liability against him he cannot turn around to question the same on flimsy grounds.
' This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and leave refused.