' Mst. Shugufta Shehnaz has through this Constitutional petition assailed judgment of respondent No,1 Additional District Judge, Sahiwal passed on 20-12-2000.
2. She had filed two suits in the Family Court, Chichawatni against respondent No,3, one for recovery of her dower amounting to Rs,10,000 and expenses incurred on the delivery of two children amounting to Rs,85,000 and other for maintenance allowance for herself and said two minors. It was alleged by her that her husband respondent No,3 Ghulam Ghous had deserted her after a few months of their marriage and since then she is living in the house of her parents where the two children were born. The said respondent had neglected and failed to provide for their maintenance and had also not paid her dower debt.
3. Both the suits were consolidated and eventually vide consolidated judgment, the former suit was decreed to the extent of dower only while her claim regarding delivery expenses to the tune of Rs,85,000 was dismissed and in the latter suit maintenance allowance to both the children was granted @ Rs,500 each per month while claim of the petitioner for maintenance allowance was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved thereby she filed a single appeal against the said consolidated judgment assailing it on the ground that quantum of maintenance allowance granted to the minors was less and dismissal of her claim regarding maintenance allowance and recovery of delivery charges was illegal.
5. The Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 20-12-2000 dismissed the appeal on the ground that a single appeal was not competent and the petitioner should have filed two separate appeals for obtaining different reliefs claimed by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ground which weighed with the learned Lower Appellate Court for dismissing the appeal is entirely erroneous as single appeal against consolidated judgment was competent. Reliance was placed on Allah Bakhsh v. Mst. Shamshad Zohra and others 1985 SCM R 959.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the authority cited by him which supports his contention.
7. As provisions of C.P.C. Other than sections 10 and 11 were inapplicable to the proceedings, technical objection of filing a single appeal against consolidated judgment, when it was manifestly directed against the decision in both did not stand in the way of adjudication.
8. The writ petition is accordingly accepted. The impugned judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Chichawatni (respondent No,1)s is set aside. He is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.