FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus MST. BASHIRAN

ORDER

1. Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has assailed the judgments dated 12‑9‑19,90 and 6‑4‑1991 passed respectively by the learned Judge Family. Court and the learned Addi. District Judge, Gujrat.

2. Facts briefly are that the respondents Nos:1 to 3 fled a maintenance suit against :the petitioner which .was contested, by him by riling the written statement wherein all the averments made in the maintenance applicant were controverted. Resultantly, the following issues were framed.:‑

(1) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected in view of preliminary objection No. " (sic) " of the written statement?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action against the defendant? OPD.

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover maintenance? If so, to what extent and for what period? O.P.P.

(4) Relief.

3. The parties led their respective' evidence. The learned Judge Family Court allowed the maintenance application and fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.200 per month for each applicant. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioncr has argued that the petitioner is a man of less means and is not in a position to pay the amount in dispute. A further argument has been advanced that the respondent No.1, Mst. Bashiran, petitioner's wife, has left the house on her own accord and is not entitled to the maintenance.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgments. It has come on record that the petitioner threw the respondents Nos.1 to 3 out of the family abode and contracted a second marriage. It has also come on record that the petitioner is having his business along with his other brothers. Rs.2(N) per month maintenance for each respondent is not much in the circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence by the two Courts below. Accordingly, I am not persuaded to interfere in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this petition in limine.

6. H.B.T./F‑6/L Petition dismissed.