MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus SHAGUFTA PARVEEN

The petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the orders dated 13‑7‑1986 and 25‑9‑1986 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class and the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.l were married in accordance with Muslim Law and Mst. Fouzia Naseem, respondent No.2 was born as a result of the above‑said wedlock between the parties. Respondent No. l filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and ultimately the marriage was dissolved. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance of both the respondents Nos.l and 2. The‑ learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence produced by the parties decreed the suit of the respondents and allowed maintenance allowance to them as well. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the above‑said judgment and decree dated 13‑7‑1986 went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Okara who dismissed the same vide his judgment dated ?5‑9‑1986.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments of the learned lower Courts are not based on law as well as evidence. He submitted that it was not legally possible for the learned trial Court to have consolidated the case and to have decided them together and in this way the case of the petitioner has substantially been prejudiced. Respondent No .l, Mst. Shagufta Parveen is also present and she has been heard.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the respondent No.l and have perused the record very carefully. I do not find any substance in the petition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cases were tried together and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him. I fail to understand as to how the prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Both the cases were consolidated and were tried together. Bashir Ahmad P.W.2 said in the evidence that monthly income of the petitioner is about Rs.2,000. However the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.300 per month for a baby of five years of age as maintenance allowance should be allowed. In appeal the maintenance allowance was reduced from Rs.300 per month to Rs.200 per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue the point that the petitioner does not earn anything or for that matter he is not bound under law to pay the maintenance allowance to the respondents. Thus, a finding of fact has been given by the learned appellate Court that he should pay a sum of Rs.200 per month as maintenance allowance to respondents Nos.l and 2. The entire evidence of the parties was considered by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court and thereafter the learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondent No.l on the basis of. Khula. Consequently the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity much less the jurisdictional defects in the judgments of the learned Courts below. The writ of the petitioner on the face of it is misconceived and as such the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./M‑6881L Petition dismissed.