Naeem Akhter Vs Ambreen Bibi

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.606-A of 2017

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...............05.07.2017......................

Petitioner(s) ...(Naeem Akhtar) by Raja Muhammad Shakeel, Advocate.........

Respondent(s)...(Ambreen Bibi etc)........................

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.- The petitioner, through instant writ petition, has challenged the validity of order dated 24.04.2017 passed by learned Judge Family Court-II, Haripur, vide which she has fixed Rs.2,500/-per month per head, as interim maintenance allowance for respondents No.2 to 6, on the grounds of being illegal, unlawful, perverse with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the impugned order dated 24/04/2017 passed by respondent No.7 may graciously be set aside and application filed by the respondent No.1 for fixation of maintenance may kindly be dismissed. Any other

relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

2.In essence, the grievance of the

petitioner is that the interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month fixed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24/04/2017 for respondents No.2 to 6 / minor children of the petitioner is not legally justified, as the same is not based on the material available on record.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the impugned interim order of the learned trial Court is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and has been passed in excess of lawful jurisdiction and authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has stated that the petitioner due to insufficient source of income is unable to pay huge amount of maintenance and contended that the interim order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of law governing the fixation of interim maintenance. Further stated that the question of insufficient source of income of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the learned respondent No.7, at the time of passing the impugned

order. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4.Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and the available record perused.

5.Perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1 has brought a suit before the Family Court for recovery of her dower, maintenance, alongwith maintenance of minor children/respondents No.2 to 6 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month per minor. The learned trial Court after notice to the present petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 and fixed the interim maintenance allowance for the minors/respondents No.2 to 6 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month per child. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, candidly admitted before the Court during the course of arguments that the petitioner can only manage to pay Rs.2,000/- per month, as his insufficient source of income cannot allow him to pay Rs.2,500/- per child per month. It is quite strange that being father of the minor children/ respondents No.2 to 6, petitioner is ignoring their maintenance on the ground of his insufficient source of income. When he is ready to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month per

child, then he can also pay Rs.2,500/- as well.

Moreover, the impugned order is interim in nature and petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the grounds of insufficient meager source of income before the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the case.

6.Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, circumstances and discussion made thereupon the present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine..

Dt.05.07.2017. JUDGE

M.Saleem/*