Suit for maintenance allowance was decreed--Concurrent findings--Statement of respondent No. 3 was not cross-examined by petitioner--Liability of father of minor children-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 26

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

----S. 9--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for maintenance allowance was decreed--Concurrent findings--Statement of respondent No. 3 was not cross-examined by petitioner--Liability of father of minor children--Challenge to--Respondent No. 3 in her suit made a categorical assertion that she was expelled from
house by petitioner--This statement was not cross-examined by petitioner--Judge family Court, rightly, granted maintenance allowance--Petitioner is father of minor children and, is liable to maintain them--Maintenance allowance awarded by Courts below does not call for any interference--Petition dismissed.

                                                                                      [Para 4] A & B

PLD 2018 SC 819 ref.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction--High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction does not act as an appellate Court and all that is required from High Court is to oversee jurisdictional errors committed by inferior Courts.                                                                             [Para 5] C

M/s. Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon and Ms. Naila Mushtaq Dhoon Advocates for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 29.6.2022.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 26
Present: Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.
MUHAMMAD AMIN--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 41183 of 2022, decided on 29.6.2022.

Order

This writ petition calls into question concurrent findings of fact recorded in the judgments rendered by both the Courts below in a family suit instituted by Respondent No. 3.

2. The facts of the case have already been mentioned with sufficient clarity in the judgments impugned in this writ petition and shall not, therefore, be reiterated here. Suffice it to state that the judge family Court allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the minor children from 11.05.2015 and also allowed recovery of dowry articles as per the terms mentioned in judgment dated 05.03.2022. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 31.05.2022.

3. Learned counsel submits that the financial resources of the petitioner were not taken into account while passing the order for maintenance allowance. It is furthermore submitted that the past maintenance allowance could not be allowed in view of the evidence of Respondent No. 3.

4. Respondent No. 3 in her suit made a categorical assertion that she was expelled from the house by the petitioner on 11.05.2015. This statement was not cross-examined by the petitioner. The judge family Court, therefore, rightly, granted maintenance allowance from 11.05.2015. In regard to the quantum of maintenance allowance, suffice it to state that the petitioner did not furnish any proof before the Court regarding the quantum of his earning. In judgment reported as Muhammad Asim and another v. Mst. Samro Begum and others PLD 2018 SC 819, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a husband is required to disclose before the Court his present and past earnings as it is his financial status that determines the amount of maintenance to be awarded. It was further held in the said judgment that in case of non-disclosure, an adverse inference can be drawn against husband. The petitioner is father of the minor children and, therefore, is liable to maintain them. In the fact and circumstances of the case the maintenance allowance awarded by the Courts below does not call for any interference. The same is the case with the claim for dowry articles.

5. The grounds challenging the judgment passed by the judge family Court have already been taken before the first appellate Court, which has exhaustively dealt with them and found no legal infirmity therein. This Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction does not act as an appellate Court and all that is required from this Court is to oversee the jurisdictional errors committed by the inferior Courts. This Court on perusal of the record is satisfied that judgments rendered by both the Courts below do not suffer from any mis-reading and non-reading of evidence. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition Dismissed