' With the concurrence' of the learned counsel for parties it is being treated as an admitted case.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondents Nos.1 to 5 (wife and children of the petitioner) had filed a suit for maintenance during pendency whereof, on 20-11- 2002, Judge, Family Court passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance for the children @ Rs,2,000 each per month for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Rs,1,500 per month each for respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are admittedly studying in B.C.S. 3rd year, I.C.S. 1st year, Matric and 7th class respectively and their educational expenses are allegedly Rs,6,000 per month.
3. The aforesaid order is assailed by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition on the grounds that it is arbitrary inasmuch as the petitioner is jobless and a retired person whose monthly pension is Rs,1,304 and while determining the quantum of maintenance his social status and the level of his financial resources was not kept in view. Reference was made in this behalf to M. Saleem Ahmad Siddique v. Mst. Sabira Begum and others 2001 YLR 2329 (Kar.). It was also urged that writ petition against an interim order is maintainable. Reliance was placed on Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others 1998 M LD 624 Lahore.
4. Writ petition is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard.
Petition and the annexures appended therewith perused.
' The petitioner had admitted in his written statement that his children viz. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are studying ip various classes as mentioned hereinbefore. Educational expenses of the said respondents are alleged as Rs,6,000 per month which is quite possible. It is alleged in the plaint that the petitioner is serving as administrative officer and is drawing monthly salary of Rs,25,000 besides pension and income from several investments made by him.
6. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that service of the petitioner was terminated in 1998 and since then he is jobless and has no other income besides pension of Rs,1,304, does not appeal to mind for the reason that order of termination of service has not been produced nor it could be explained as to how the petitioner is living and maintaining himself in a rented house in Islamabad for the last 5 years after his alleged termination from service. He is admittedly residing in Constitutional Avenue, Sector-G, 5/2, Islamabad where the monthly rent of residential accommodation is much more than what he has been asked to deposit by way of interim maintenance for his children. Ex facie the petitioner appears to be a man of means.
7. Writ petition against an interim order is not maintainable unless such order is without jurisdiction.
Judge, Family Court admittedly had the jurisdiction to pass an order for interim maintenance hence the case-law referred by the petitioner's counsel viz. 1998 M LD 624 (Lah.) is not applicable.
8. The other authority viz. 2001 YLR 2329 (Kar.) does not relate to interim order of maintenance. In the said writ petition final judgments/decrees of maintenance were assailed. Interim maintenance allowance is always subject to variation and adjustment at the time of final decision which is given after recording the evidence of the parties.
9. For the reasons stated above this writ petition being incompetent is hereby dismissed.