PLJ 2010 Lahore 338

 PLJ 2010 Lahore 338

[Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi]

Present: Jamila Jahanoor Aslam, J.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR SHERAZI--Petitioner

versus

A.D.J. RAWALPINDI etc.--Respondents

W.P. Nos. 1811 of 2008 & 476 of 2009, heard on 13.07.2009

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

----S. 10(4)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction--Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles and maintenance against petitioner--Suit was decreed to extent of dissolution of marriage u/S. 10(4) of Family Courts Act, 1964, prior to framing of issues on other two matters--Appeals were filed by both the parties--Appeal of lady was partly accepted and findings of trial Court had been reversed to extent of recovery of dowry articles which had been dismissed--Quantum of maintenance granted to lady for iddat period as well as for minor had not been modified and appeal of present petitioner was dismissed in toto--Challenge to--Dowry articles were brought after the parties returned from abroad were she proceeded with her husband--Receipts for purchase of dowry articles presented her are of the dates prior to the marriage--Her evidence has too many loopholes in it to make her version credible--Family Court has overlooked very cogent points and passed the judgment without proper reading of the evidence--Held: Observations of Courts below qua quantum of maintenance are agreeable, however order to extent of maintenance allowance for minor is modified and enhancement @ 10% per annum is made--Except for modification is maintenance allowance awarded to minor, both petitioner are without merits--Petition dismissed.

      [P. 340] A, B, & C

Ms. Amber Pervez, Advocate for Petitioner.

Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing 13.7.2009.

Judgment

This order shall dispose off Writ Petitions No. 1811 of 2008 and No. 476 of 2009 as the controversy is between the same parties and similar questions law and facts are involved.

2.  Background of the matter is that the Petitioner Mst. Shehnaz Bano in Writ Petition No. 476 of 2009 had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles and maintenance, which was contested by the present petitioner and was decreed to the extent of dissolution of marriage vide order dated 04.01.2008 under Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964, prior to framing of issues on the other two matters. The suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 31.07.2008 and feeling aggrieved of the same both the parties preferred appeals. The appeal of Mst. Shehnaz Bano was partly accepted vide judgment/decree dated 16.10.2008 whereby the learned Additional District Judge Rawalpindi had reversed the findings of the learned trial Court to the extent of recovery of dowry articles which had been dismissed. However, the quantum of maintenance granted for Iddat period as well as for minor had not been modified and the appeal of present petitioner, Muhammad Tahir Sherizi was dismissed in toto. Being aggrieved of the judgment/decree of the learned A.D.J. Rawalpindi dated 16.10.2008, both the parties have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and impugned the said order. The main contention of the lady Mst. Shehnaz Bano is that Muhammad Tahir Sherazi has not appeared in person in the matter before trial Court. This is refuted by bare perusal of the order sheet dated 04.01.2008 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the defendant is present in person. She also claims her stance such qua dowry articles has not been refuted by the present petitioner and has prayed for setting aside of the judgment/decree dated 16.10.2008 and for restoration of judgment/decree dated 31.07.2008.

3.  On the other hand petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2008 has agitated the quantum of maintenance granted to the lady and minor.

4.  After hearing the submission of the Counsel for the parties and thorough reading of the record, I am inclined to agree with the observations of learned A.D.J. Rawalpindi. It is obvious from the record that the lady was not given any dowry article as per her own admission. She claimed that the dowry articles were bought after the parties returned from abroad where she proceeded with her husband. The receipts for purchase of dowry articles presented by her are of the dates prior to the marriage. Her evidence has too many loopholes in it to make her version credible. However, Family Court has overlooked very cogent points and passed the judgment/decree dated 31.07.2008 without proper reading of the evidence. As far as the contention of present petitioner, qua the quantum of maintenance is concerned, I find the same totally without merit. In view of the fact, that he is working in Dubai and is fairly well-off, I am inclined to agree that the observations of the Courts below qua the quantum of maintenance, however I would like to modify the order to the extent of maintenance allowance for the minor and make it with an enhancement @ 10% per annum. In these days of double digit inflation, lower Courts must keep enhancement in mind while passing judgments/decrees on the quantum of maintenance allowance. As the children grow so, do their needs. Keeping enhancement in the maintenance in mind while passing judgments/ decrees, it would cut down on further litigation between the parties. The idea is to make lives of the people easier whereby they don't have to keep returning to the Courts to file new/fresh suits/applications for enhancement.

5.  In sequel of the above discussion, except for the modification to the extent of enhancement @ 10% per annum in the maintenance allowance awarded to the minor, both the petitions are without merits, thus I dismiss the writ petitions.

(Sh.A.S.)   Petition dismissed.