Maintenance allowance--Concurrent findings--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--Grounds raised by counsel for petitioner are neither legal nor touching jurisdiction--Petitioner has already exhausted appellate forum-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 15

Present: Shahid Jamil Khan, J.

SALEEM--Petitioners

versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ZAFARWAL etc.--Respondents

W.P. No. 3422 of 2015, decided on 11.4.2022.

Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--

----S. 9--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Maintenance allowance--Concurrent findings--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--Grounds raised by counsel for petitioner are neither legal nor touching jurisdiction--Petitioner has already exhausted appellate forum--Petition dismissed.                                [Para 3] A

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 11.4.2022.

Order

Petitioner has assailed judgment and decree passed by Judge Family Court, Zafarwal regarding maintenance to wife (Respondent No. 3) for three years of desertion period at the rate of Rs. 3500/-per month with 10% annual increase. The decree to this extent was upheld by the Appellate Court.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court against concurrent finding of fact and read Paragraph No. 12 from the judgment by Trial Court wherein it is found, on facts, that petitioner did not make any serious effort to rehabilitate the deserted wife for last three years. Though petitioner recorded in his evidence that he is willing to rehabilitate her but in absence of any suit for restitution of conjugal rights or an effort before the elders of the village or family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that findings of fact by both the Courts below are not as per record. He has referred to Paragraph No. 4 of the written statement to submit that from day one petitioner is ready to rehabilitate the wife but this aspect has been ignored by both the Courts below. Also submits that desertion period was two months before filing of suit, therefore, determination of maintenance for three years is against the record.

3. The grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are neither legal nor touching the jurisdiction. The petitioner has already exhausted appellate forum. The concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below cannot be displaced in constitutional jurisdiction.

No case for interference is made out, therefore, the petition is dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed