MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs ALI AHMAD and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a family dispute concerning the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner's children. The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the Family Court, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, which had decreed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month for each of the three respondents. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in determining the quantum of maintenance without sufficient evidence regarding the petitioner's income and whether the maintenance amount was excessive. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's sufficient means of income and his legal obligation to maintain his children. The Court found no substantial question of law of public importance involved and determined that the impugned judgment suffered from no legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance quantum where the petitioner's financial capacity and obligation to maintain children have been adequately established by the lower courts.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantum of maintenance?
- Is a father legally obligated to maintain his children based on his financial means?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 27- 9-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,21951 of 2000.
2. The petitioner had married Mst. Rukhsana Bibi on 16-11-1990. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 were born out of this wedlock. The suit for maintenance filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner was decreed by the Judge, Family Court allowing them maintenance at the monthly rate of Rs,2000 each. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 11-5-2000. The Writ Petition No,21951 of 2000 filed by him was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 27-9-2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that without determining the source of income of the petitioner the excessive amount of maintenance could not be fixed. It was further argued that there was no sufficient evidence on record to support the findings of the Courts fixing the quantum of maintenance on hearsay evidence.
4. On the other hand, 'Mst. Rukhsana Bibi (mother of respondents Nos.1 to 3) stated that the petitioner was a goldsmith. He possessed sufficient means of income and was under obligation to maintain his children adequately. She further stated that the quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs,2000 to each of the respondents was quite reasonable in the circumstances.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mst. Rukhsana Bibi in person. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner had sufficient means of income and was under obligation to make the payment of maintenance to each of his children at the rate of Rs,2000 per month. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.
This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.