Maintenance Allowance Judgments

Maintenance Allowance Judgements

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Irfan Mohsin
Side Opponent : Additional District and Sessions Judge

S. 5--- Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.5 (5) & 6 (2A)--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Dowery articles, value of--- maintenance allowance --- Unauthorized entries in Nikah Nama--- Remedy--- Petitioner / husband was aggrieved of quantum of amount of dowery articles while respondent / minor assailed finding of Lower Appellate Court which reduced maintenance allowance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month--- Contention of petitioner / husband was that Nikah Khawan/ Registrar unauthorizedly incorporated certain entries in Nikahnama, which were not settled between the parties--- Validity--- If Nikah Khawan/Registrar mentioned un-settled conditions in Nikah Nama, petitioner could conveniently approach Deputy Commissioner or authorities of Local Government concerned for rectification in addition to putting criminal machinery in motion by filing a complaint before relevant authority--- Nikah Khawan/Registrar fell within the definition of "public servant" in terms of section 21 of Penal Code, 1860--- Petitioner / husband could not take premium of inaction on his part, as he did not refer to any material to show that he had challenged entries of Nikah Nama before the relevant forum--- Father of respondent / wife was owner of reasonable chunk of land at the time of marriage between parties and he was in a position to give dowry articles worth Rs.200,000/- to his daughter--- There was custom in the locality that daughters were given dowry articles at the time of their marriage--- High Court declined to interfere in findings of both the courts below on the point of dowry articles--- High Court set aside findings of Lower Appellate Court on the point of maintenance of respondent / minor and restored that of Trial Court--- Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 CLC 5 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NASIR SHARIF
Side Opponent : SABEELA IMTIAZ

               Ss. 5, 7, 9 & 17A---Suit for restitution of conjugal rights---maintenance allowance ---Petitioner / husband was aggrieved of fixation of monthly maintenance allowance to respondent / wife during proceedings of suit for restitution of conjugal rights---Validity---Wife while resisting a suit for restitution of conjugal rights can raise any of the permissible claims covered under Family Courts Act, 1964 but in such case Family Court would be obliged to provide opportunity to husband (plaintiff) to file a rejoinder in response thereto, which has to be treated as written statement on his behalf---Family Court allowed respondent / wife to raise her claim of maintenance while responding in suit for restitution of conjugal rights, filed by petitioner / husband but without affording the latter an opportunity to submit rejoinder and had proceeded to fix interim maintenance of respondent / wife which even otherwise, was negation of S. 17A of Family Courts Act, 1964---High Court directed Family Court to permit petitioner / husband to file his rejoinder to claim of maintenance , raised by respondent / wife in her written statement and on receipt of the same, if so filed, proceed to fix interim maintenance ---High Court set aside order passed Family Court fixing maintenance allowance ---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. Mariam Butt
Side Opponent : Asad

                        Ss. 5, Sched. & 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Family Court and Appellate Court qua maintenance and dowry articles---Bar of second appeal---Reappraisal of evidence---Interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---High Court could not go into the issue of maintenance and recovery of dowry articles being factual issues, which were decided by the Trial Court after leading evidence---In family matters under the Family Courts Act, 1964, only one right of appeal is provided and no further proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction could take place unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were missing in the present case---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. 

Citation Name : 2025 CLC 54 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : FARHAT RASHID
Side Opponent : SABA FARHAT RASHID

                        S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Jurisdiction of the Court---Whether Single Judge of High Court had erred (غلطی) in assuming jurisdiction---In respect of some past/future maintenance allowance , a direct Constitutional Petition was filed by the wife and children before the High Court ; despite office objections, High Court on the assumption (فرضی) of jurisdiction, passed an order directing appellant to deposit a certain amount---Appellant, being respondent in the constitutional petition in which impugned order was passed, filed intra-court appeal under S.3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Plea of the appellant was that under wrong assumption of jurisdiction, impugned order was passed---Validity---Reliance of appellant to prefer appeal under S.3 of Ordinance, 1972 read with Art. 199, Cls. (1) of the Constitution was misconceived---In the first instance, the impugned order, admittedly, did not arise out of frame of Cl. (1) of Art. 199 of the Constitution; this would not only exclude the appellant from preferring an appeal but Cl. (3) of Art. 199 was also directly applied in the sense that it was only an ad interim order---No such appeal could be filed within the frame of S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, read with Art. 199 of the Constitution as the causes arising out of Cl.(1) of Art. 199 were primarily dealt with by Division Bench of the High Court as against rest of the other jurisdictions---Appellant may well address it under the principle of Kompetence-Kompetence and the Single Judge at best shall decide the issue of maintainability first before proceeding further in any manner --- Division Bench of the High Court remanded the case to the Single Judge who shall hear the counsel preferably on the maintainability issue first and shall then, if so required, proceed further as far as merits were concerned---Appeal stood disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name  : 2022  MLD  1762     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : KASHIF MAHMOOD

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

S.17A(3)---maintenance ---Annual increase in maintenance ---Scope---Provision of S.17A(3) creates a new statutory right of automatic increase in the maintenance fixed by the Court in cases where annual increase has not been prescribed, it does not operate backwards---Fact that statutory prerequisites under S.17A(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (i.e. fixation of maintenance by the Court and omission or failure of the Court to prescribe annual increase in the maintenance ) may be drawn from a period prior to the enactment does not render application or operation of the said provision to be retrospective , particularly when the automatic annual increase in the maintenance takes effect from the date of enactment and not the period prior to that.

Citation Name  : 2022  MLD  1523     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : GHULAM MUSTAFA

Side Opponent : ANILA SHAHZADI

S.5, Schd. & S.17-A---Suit for maintenance ----Interpretation of S.17-A(3) of Family Courts Act, 1964 [Punjab Amendment]---retrospective Effect---Respondent (wife) filed application before Execution Court seeking benefit of subsection (3) of S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 and 10 percent annual increment was granted---Appeal field by petitioner (husband) was dismissed by Appellate Court---Question was whether rights extended under decree were intended to be annulled /cancelled by virtue of Punjab Amendment of Family Courts Act, 1964---Court had disallowed annual increment while passing decree which decree had attained finality---Held, that subsection (3) of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, did not manifest any such intention---Legislature had not intended to make it applicable retrospective ly extending opportunity to re-open decrees passed and final---Substantive rights, accrued and vested, could not be destroyed or impaired by a new law unless that law, by its express provision or by necessary intendment, was retrospective in operation---No such intent was evident or could be gathered from perusal of subsection (3) of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, which could not be stretched to disturb rights created and obligations prescribed in terms of decree---Subsection (3) of S.17-A Family Courts Act, 1964, could not be construed to have annulled or substantially altered judgment and decree in the present case---Constitutional petition was allowed.