RASHEED AHMED Versus Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM

ORDER

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- In a suit filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner for recovery of maintenance, after contest, was decreed by a learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi, on 15-12-2003 inasmuch as he awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month each to respondents Nos.2 and 3, minor daughters of the petitioner, with effect from the date of institution of the suit with 10% increase after every three years. Feeling aggrieved; the respondents filed first appeal, which has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge; Rawalpindi, on 30-11-2004 inasmuch as while maintaining the rate of maintenance, he directed that the maintenance will be paid with effect from six years prior to the institution of the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first appeal was not competent as the rate of maintenance was Rs.1,000 per child. He refers to section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. Further contends that the maintenance could have been granted only for three years prior to the date of institution of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.

3. I have examined the copies of record. It will be seen that the only point being agitated is as to the period wherefrom the past maintenance could have been granted. In, the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begun and 3 others PLD 1972 SC 302, a Bench comprising of four Honourable Judges headed by the Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upheld a decision rendered by the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan holding that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for maintenance. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, acted within his domain while passing the impugned judgment and decree.

4. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the same is, rather misconceived. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal, both in the matters of past maintenance as also for enhancement of rate of maintenance. The appeal was not barred by law. Writ petition is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.

H.B.T./R-6/L Petition dismissed.