MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Versus MST. SHAZIA

1. This petition emanating out of the judgment in affirmance of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad dated 6‑7‑1991 upholding the findings recorded by the learned Judge Family Court on 28‑11‑1989 awarding maintenance to respondents 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.300 per mensem per head for three years preceding institution of the suit i.e.. 26‑9‑1987, inter alia, claiming maintenance for the respondents at the rate of Rs.800 p.m. since August, 1983, has urged bi‑fold contentions, viz placing reliance on Syed Hamid Ali Shah v. Mst. Razia Sultana (1991 CLC 766) submitted that under Mohemdan Law, awarding of maintenance is contingent upon decree of Qazi, in the absence whereof, past maintenance cannot be claimed, and, secondly, the quantum of maintenance is beyond petitioner's means.

2. I am afraid, both the contentions arc misconceived; the first argument y seems to have been advanced in oblivion of the fact that section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 read with item 3 of the Schedule thereof, catering for maintenance without distinguishing the period thereof in terms of past or future, has been adjudged to be in consonance with the Injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah by the Federal Shariat Court and remains unrepealed on the statute part, while the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others (PLD 1972 SC 302) examining wife's right to past maintenance under Mohemdan Law, approved enunciation of the law by a Division Bench of this Court in Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Naseeman Bibi and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 703 repelling the argument presently being convassed and was followed in Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Abida Bibi (1982 CLC 1295).

3. Likewise, the second contention loses sight of the fact that three witnesses namely Shafique Ahmad, Abdul Qayyum Bhatti and Mst. Shazia appearing as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively categorically deposed as to three sources of petitioner's income viz., being a share‑holder in Petrol Pump business at Kharian Road; tractors' spare parts shop under the name and style of Ittefaq Autos and rental income from shops cumulatively amounting to rupees nine to ten thousands per month by proximation; independent thereof, it pertains to the realm of facts.

4. In view of the afore going, the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below are unexceptionable and the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed in limine.

5. A.A./M‑54/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.