--S. 14--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, delivery expenses, dowry articles and dower--Partially decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Claims of respondent for recovery of her maintenance allowance, delivery expenses and dower were declined-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 132
Present: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
MUHAMMAD SHAREEF--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TEHSIL RENALAKHURD DISTRICT OKARA etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 27046 of 2023, heard on 19.4.2023.

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--

----S. 14--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, delivery expenses, dowry articles and dower--Partially decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Claims of respondent for recovery of her maintenance allowance, delivery expenses and dower were declined--Challenge to--Respondent No. 3 alongwith Respondents No. 4 & 5  instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, delivery expenses, dowry articles and dower A against Petitioner who is father-in-law of Respondent and grandfather of Minors which was partially decreed by Family Court--I t is evident from Judgments that Courts below have endeavoured to strike a balance between constraints of Petitioner as grandfather and needs of Minors in terms of their maintenance--This balance indirectly rests on premises that Petitioner’s son Ejaz and other sons are relatively well placed who can compensate Petitioner--Decisions are based on cogent and sound reasoning--Impugned Judgments are unexceptional and do not warrant any interference in exercise of extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court--Petition dismissed.            

                                                                               [Para 2 & 5] A & B

Ch. Nazir Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 19.4.2023.

Judgment

This constitutional Petition is directed against the impugned Judgments & Decrees dated 03.10.2022 and 25 01-2023 passed by Judge Family Court, Renala Khurd and Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd, District Okara, respectively.

2. Briefly, Respondent No. 3 (the “Respondent”) alongwith Respondents No. 4 & 5 (the “Minors”) instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, delivery expenses, dowry articles and dower against the Petitioner who is father-in-law of the Respondent and grandfather of the Minors which was partially decreed by the Family Court. The Minors were held entitled to receive maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5.000 each per month with 10% annual increase from the date of institution of the suit till their legal entitlement. The Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance to the Minors from the income of his immovable property and in case of failure, the property of the Petitioner will be attached and maintenance allowance of the Minors will be recovered from the sale proceeds of the said immovable property of the Petitioner. However, the claims of the Respondent for recovery of her maintenance allowance, delivery expenses and dower were declined.

3. It is noted that the Family Court granted the maintenance allowance to the Minors on the basis of reasons recorded in paragraph Nos.  18, 19 and 20 of the impugned Judgment dated 03.10.2022 which are reproduced as under:

“18. The grandfather can only be held liable to pay maintenance allowance to his grandchildren if he is in easy circumstances. After going through the evidence of the parties, one thing is crystal clear that the defendant is a man of extreme old age having age of more than 75 years It is also an admitted by the plaintiff No. 1 and her witness that defendant is not doing any business during these days. However, another fact has been brought on record that defendant is owner of a house measuring 03-Marlas 08-Sarsai 2½ Feet as per document Mark-C. Plaintiff’s witnesses deposed that defendant has given his house on rent and receiving monthly rent of Rs. 15,000. It is also an admitted fact that defendant is dependent upon his son namely Ijaz Ahmad (DW-2) and he is living with him now a days.

19. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted before the Court that Ijaz Ahmad son of the defendant is a man of means and he can easily pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 15,000/-each to the plaintiffs. It is hereby observed that the son of the defendant namely Ijaz cannot be bound to maintain the minor daughters of his deceased brother as he is not party to the suit. Further he is under no legal obligations to maintain the plaintiffs. However, it is hereby observed that the defendant is owner of a house measuring 03-Marlas 08-Sarsal 2½ Feet as per document Mark-C. It is hereby observed that the defendant is man of extreme old age and he is not doing any work.

20. So I am of the view that person of defendant cannot be held liable to pay maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs. However, he is under legal obligations to maintain his grandchildren through the income of his immoveable property. So the plaintiffs have Successfully proved her case to the extent of recovery of maintenance allowance of minor plaintiffs No. 2
& 3 from the property of the defendant, which is allegedly rented out by him. This fact is also established from the record that defendant is living with his son namely Ijaz whereas, other sons of the defendant are separately residing.”

4. An Appeal preferred by the Respondent and the Minors against the aforesaid Judgment was also dismissed by the Appellate Court in the following terms:

“From the above discussion it comes out that the respondent is a puffed pipe with very ordinary source of income. The learned trial Court keeping in view the social status, financial position and old age of the respondent has rightly held the respondent responsible to pay maintenance allowance to Appellants No. 2 & 3 and has rightly determined the maintenance allowance to the extent of Appellants No. 2 and 3 has correctly denied the maintenance allowance of Appellant No. 1 as being father-in-law he is not duty bound legally to maintain his daughter-in-law i.e. Appellant No. 1. The appellants have failed to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any material illegality/irregularity inn the impugned judgment and decree calling for interference by this Court. Consequently, family appeal in hand being devoid of any substance and merits is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.”

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was confronted with the well-reasoned and sound Judgments passed by the Courts below but he could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the same which may make out a case to reverse the findings recorded by the Courts below. He stressed that grandfather is not in easy circumstances and therefore, could not be burdened. However, it is evident from the aforesaid Judgments that the Courts below have endeavoured to strike a balance between the constraints of the Petitioner as grandfather and the needs of the Minors in terms of their maintenance. This balance indirectly rests on the premises that Petitioner’s son Ejaz and other sons are relatively well placed who can compensate the Petitioner. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the decisions are based on cogent and sound reasoning. As such, the impugned Judgments are unexceptional and do not warrant any interference in the exercise of extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

6. This constitutional Petition is dismissed in limine. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Judgment to the Family Court for information and record.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed