PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 43
Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--
----S. 14--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, S. 9--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance--Allegation of torture--Concealment of second marriage by respondent--Respondent had leveled allegation of torture upon petitioner and his family members--She was ready to reside with petitioner and perform her matrimonial obligations, if petitioner provided her separate residence at some distance from house of his family members--Respondent had also given an option to petitioner to reside with her--She will bear expenses of rent of house but petitioner stated that he can only keep Respondent in his village separately--Courts below rightly concluded that Respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner and as such, latter was bound to maintain her--Petition dismissed. [Para 5 & 6] A & B
Syed Imran Abbas Kazmi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 3.10.2022.
PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 43
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT VEHARI and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 14694 of 2022, decided on 3.10.2022.
Order
This constitutional Petition is directed against the impugned Judgments & Decrees dated 13.04.2022 and 14.07.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge (Family Division) Vehari and Additional District Judge, Vehari, respectively.
2. Precisely, Respondent No. 3 (the “Respondent”) instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance which was decreed by the Family Court and the Respondent was held entitled to recover maintenance allowance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month from institution of suit till subsistence of marriage with 10% annual increase.
3. The Petitioner filed an Appeal against the Judgment passed by the Family Court which was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned Judgments & Decrees passed by the Courts below are unlawful for the reason that the Respondent after getting divorce from her first husband has contracted second marriage with the Petitioner by concealing this fact. As such, the Respondent was not entitled for any maintenance allowance. Further, the Petitioner was ready and willing to rehabilitate the Respondent in a separate house but she herself refused to reside with him. The Respondent is a disobedient wife and she has her independent source of earning, therefore, the grant of maintenance allowance by the Courts below is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. The impugned Judgments and the evidence on record have been perused. It was established that the Respondent had levelled allegation of torture upon the Petitioner and his family members. The Respondent categorically stated that she was ready to reside with the Petitioner and perform her matrimonial obligations, if the Petitioner provided her separate residence at some distance from the house of his family members, Similarly, the Respondent had also given an option to the Petitioner to reside with her either in Ada Machiwal or Vehari and she will bear the expenses of rent of house but the Petitioner stated that he can only keep the Respondent in his village separately and until the birth of child he will never allow her to live separately from his other family members.
6. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent were educated having qualification of master degrees. The assertions of the Petitioner that he tried his level best to rehabilitate the Respondent and offered a separate accommodation were not correct. The Courts below have duly appraised each and every piece of evidence on record which does not call for any interference by this Court. The quantum of maintenance allowance was also fixed keeping in view the financial resources of the Petitioner and the same is neither exorbitant nor excessive in this era of price hike and inflation. The Courts below rightly concluded that the Respondent is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner and as such, the latter was bound to maintain her. The issue of concealment of second marriage by the Respondent has also been dealt with in detail by the Appellate Court.
7. The impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are unexceptional. No case for interference is made out which may warrant exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
8. In view of the above, this Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
(K.Q.B.) Petition dismissed
0 comments:
Post a Comment