--Art. 199--West Pakistan Family Courts, Rules, 1965, R. 6 r/w S. 7(2) of West Pakistan Family Courts, Act, ( of 1964)--Fixation of interim maintenance allowance--

 PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 122

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--West Pakistan Family Courts, Rules, 1965, R. 6 r/w S. 7(2) of West Pakistan Family Courts, Act, ( of 1964)--Fixation of interim maintenance allowance--Jurisdiction--Maintainability--Challenge to--Under Rule 6 of West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 read with Section 7(2) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance can be filed before a Family Court, where wife resides--As plaintiffs have claimed that they are living in Lahore, therefore, issue of jurisdiction has rightly been decided by Judge Family Court, Lahore--So far as quantum of interim maintenance allowance of minor at rate of Rs. 2500/- per-month is concerned, Judge Family Court has rightly fixed same while keeping in view status of parties--Petitioner has challenged interim order of Judge Family Court, Lahore, which is always subject to final decision of case--High Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact and cannot determine status of parties in its Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, instant writ petition, which has been filed against an interim order, is not maintainable--Petition dismissed.    [Para 5 & 6] A, B, C & D

PLD 2005 SC 22 ref.

Mr. Atif Mehmood Chaudhry, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhutta, Advocate for Respondents
No. 1 and 2.

Date of hearing: 23.12.2011.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 122
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.
HAKIM ALI--Petitioner
versus
Mst. KAUSAR, and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 9350 of 2011, decided on 23.12.2011.

Order

This petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 16.03.2011, whereby, interim maintenance allowance at the rate of
Rs. 2500/- per-month of minor/Respondent No. 2 has been fixed, as well as, against the order dated 18.04.2011, whereby, preliminary objection taken by the petitioner/defendant regarding jurisdiction of the Court was decided in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 and 2, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant that the petitioner is resident of Sahiwal, therefore, under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 and 2; that it was admitted in the plaint by Plaintiff No. 1 that she was ousted from the house of the petitioner, therefore, her plaint has illegally been entertained by the above-mentioned Court at Lahore; that the quantum of interim maintenance allowance of minor at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per-month is beyond the means of the petitioner; that the said interim maintenance allowance has been fixed without keeping in view the status of the parties, therefore, the above-mentioned impugned orders may be set-aside.

3. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 on the grounds that the plaintiffs have been living at Lahore, therefore, under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiffs; that a specific ground was taken by the plaintiffs/ Respondents No. 1 and 2 in Para 10 of their plaint that they were living at Lahore, and there is no specific denial by the petitioner in his written-statement to the above-mentioned fact; that the interim maintenance allowance was fixed by the Courts below while keeping in view the status of the parties, because the petitioner/defendant has himself admitted in his written-statement that there were gold, ornaments weighing 13 tolas and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his house, which were, allegedly taken away by plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 at the time of desertion; that the instant writ petition has been filed against an interim order, which is not maintainable, therefore, the same may be dismissed.

4. Arguments heard and record.

5. Under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 read with Section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance can be filed before a Family Court, where wife resides. As the plaintiffs have claimed that they are living in Lahore, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction has rightly been decided by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore. Reference in this context may be made to the case of Muhammad Iqbal through Special Attorney Faiz Sultan vs. Parveen Iqbal (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 22).

So far as the quantum of interim maintenance allowance of minor at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per-month is concerned, the learned Judge Family Court has rightly fixed the same while keeping in view the status of the parties. The petitioner/defendant has mentioned in Para No. 3 of his written-statement that there were gold ornaments weighing 13 tolas and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his house, which were allegedly stolen by plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 at the time of desertion. So, keeping in view the present state of inflation and price hike, the above-mentioned interim maintenance allowance cannot be declared to be exorbitant or excessive.

6. The petitioner has challenged interim order of the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, which is always subject to final decision of the case. This Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact and cannot determine the status of the parties in its Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, instant writ petition, which has been filed against an interim order, is not maintainable and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed