Suit for dissolution of marriage--Observed that minor respondents..--decreed and minors were held entitled to receive maintenance allowance- ~ Pakistan Family Law Case Laws

ی ایل جے 2021 لاہور ہائی کورٹ 140

 خالد محمود
 بمقابلہ
 اضافی ضلعی انصاف ، وغیرہ

 آئین پاکستان ، 1973-- ---- آرٹ۔  199 - آئینی درخواست - شادی وغیرہ کو تحلیل کرنے کا مقدمہ چلانے کا حکم دیا گیا تھا اور نابالغوں کو بحالی الاؤنس وصول کرنے کا حقدار قرار دیا گیا تھا - جہیز کے مضامین کا حصول - چیلینج - یہ مشاہدہ کیا جاتا ہے کہ درخواست گزار کے جائز بچے ہونے کی وجہ سے معمولی جواب دہندگان مستحق ہیں  ان کے والد کی طرف سے برقرار رکھا جائے اور درخواست گزار صرف یہ کہہ کر اپنی ذمہ داری سے باز نہیں آسکتے کہ اس کے پاس اپنے بچوں کی دیکھ بھال کے لئے آمدنی کا کوئی وسیلہ نہیں ہے۔  2000 / - ہر ماہ ہر ایک حد سے زیادہ نہیں ہے اور نابالغوں کی روزانہ کی ضروریات کو پورا کرنے کے لئے صرف اتنا ہی کافی ہوگا اور یہ شواہد کی مناسب تعریف پر مبنی ہے جس کی کھوج کی بنیاد رکھی گئی ہے ، لہذا ، اس کے خلاف آئینی درخواست برقرار رکھنے کے قابل نہیں ہے کیوں کہ اس میں کوئی غیر قانونی چیز نہیں ہے  غیر متزلزل آرڈر کی نشاندہی کی گئی ہے - یہ عدالت آئینی دائرہ اختیار کا استعمال کرتے ہوئے نیچے عدالتوں کے سامنے پیش کردہ شواہد کو عام طور پر مذکور عدالتوں کے ذریعہ درج حقائق کی تلاش کے متبادل کی توثیق نہیں کرتی ہے ، اور نہ ہی کوئی غلط بیانی ، نہ پڑھنے کے ثبوت کی کوالٹی یا اہلیت کے بارے میں اپنی رائے نہیں دیتی ہے۔  ریکارڈ یا کسی بھی قسم کی غیر قانونی نشاندہی کی گئی ہے ، جو ریکارڈ پر قائم نہیں ہوئی ہے ، لہذا ، حقیقت کو ڈھونڈنے والے نتائج کو الگ الگ رکھنے کی کوئی گنجائش نہیں ہے۔

PLJ 2021 Lahore 140
Present: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J.
KHALID MAHMOOD--Appellant
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 10657 of 2019, decided on 22.02.2019.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for dissolution of marriage etc. was decreed and minors were held entitled to receive maintenance allowance--Entitlement of dowry articles--Challenge to--It is observed that minor respondents being legitimate children of petitioner are entitled to be maintained by their father and petitioner cannot absolve from his responsibility merely by stating that he has no sufficient source of income to maintain his children--As order of maintenance allowance for Rs. 2000/- per month each is not exorbitant and would barely be enough to meet with day to day needs of minors and is based on proper appreciation of evidence which finding is well founded, therefore, constitutional petition against same is not maintainable as no illegality in impugned order is pointed out--This Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise evidence produced before Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by said Courts, nor gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of evidence unless any misreading, non-reading of record or any illegality is pointed out, which have not been established on record, hence, there is no ground to set-aside said findings of fact.
                                                                      [Pp. 141 & 142] A, B & C
Rana Muhammad Naeem Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 22.02.2019.
Order
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgments and decrees dated 03.05.2018 and 22.12.2016 passed by the Courts below, whereby the said Courts have partially allowed the claim of the respondents.
2.  Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.10.2011 and from the said wedlock minor Respondents No. 3 to 5 were born. On 04.02.2016, the plaintiffs filed a family suit for dissolution of marriage, etc., against the petitioner-defendant, which was contested by the petitioner by way of filing written statement in which he controverted the claim of the respondents. On conclusion of the trial, the minor Respondents No. 3 to 5 were held entitled to receive maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000/- per month each with 10% annual increase from institution of the suit till their legal entitlement. The plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 was entitled to receive Rs. 300,000/- as an alternate price of dowry articles. On appeal filed by the respondent, the learned appellate Court maintained the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018. Both the afore-referred judgments and decrees are under challenge through this constitutional petition.
3.  Heard. Record perused.
4.  The counsel for the petitioner while referring observation made in Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the said Courts fixed the alternate price of dowry keeping in view admission of the defendant at
Rs. 3,00,000/- argues that it is nowhere stated by the petitioner that he admitted the claim of dowry articles. It is noticed that in Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement, although the petitioner has stated that the list is fake and fabricated yet he did not deny that dowry articles of ordinary nature were given to respondent rather claimed that same were consumed during the subsistence of marriage and the rest of the items are lying seal pack. It is further noticed that the learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record fixed the alternate price of dowry articles after excluding jewellery, clothes, shoes, beddings and items of fancy decoration and not merely on the basis of admission. Consequently, the said argument of the learned counsel is of no force, hence, replied in negative.
5.  The other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Courts below have not considered the financial capacity of the petitioner, who is source less and earns
Rs. 9000/- only per month, whereas the maintenance allowance of the minor respondents fixed by the Courts below @ Rs. 2000/- per month each is not within his paying range. It has come in the evidence that the petitioner is a Munshi in vegetable market and is earning his livelihood from the said source. It is observed that the minor

respondents being legitimate children of the petitioner are entitled to be maintained by their father and the petitioner cannot absolve from his responsibility merely by stating that he has no sufficient source of income to maintain his children.
6.  As order of maintenance allowance for Rs. 2000/- per month each is not exorbitant and would barely be enough to meet with the day to day needs of the minors and is based on proper appreciation of evidence which finding is well founded, therefore, constitutional petition against the same is not maintainable as no illegality in the impugned order is pointed out.
7.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the impugned judgments. The assessment and appraisal of evidence is the function of the Family Court, which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. This Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence produced before the Courts below to substitute findings of facts recorded by the said Courts, nor gives its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of the evidence unless any misreading, non-reading of record or any illegality is pointed out, which have not been established on the record, hence, there is no ground to set-aside the said findings of fact.
8.  For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of any merits dismissed in limine.
(M.M.R.)         Petition Dismissed