YOUSAF Vs. RUBEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the father of the respondents. The mother of the respondents was divorced by the appellant. There were disputes between the appellant and the mother of the respondents. Altogether there were six children born in the wedlock. When litigations were pending between the appellant and the mother of the respondents, Annexure A1 agreement was entered into. As per the terms of the said agreement, the respondents herein were allegedly handed over to the custody of the appellant. The mother of the respondents was given custody of only the sixth child, a male child. All pending proceedings were allegedly brought to termination after execution of Annexure-A1 agreement.

(2.) Subsequently, admittedly the children, the respondents herein continued in the custody of their mother. According to the appellant, their mother had snatched away the respondents, who were agreed to be and were actually handed over under Annexure A1 agreement to the appellant. The appellant did not take any steps to get the respondents back into his custody admittedly. The mother of the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance. That petition was allowed and maintenance was ordered to the respondents as per order in M.C. No. 65 of 1993. That order was passed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure Later M.C. No. 143 of 2003 was filed before the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C for enhancement of the maintenance amount. That was allowed. The same was challenged. The challenge was rejected by the High Court as per Order in R.P.(FC) No. 59 of 2006.

(3.) While the respondents were continuing in the custody of their mother, both of them attained majority. There is no contention that the respondents have any physical or mental abnormality, injury or disability. Thus, the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure came to a grinding halt. Thereafter maintenance was not paid to the respondents herein.