2010 PLP 821 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD TAYYAB — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 821 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAYYAB — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 821 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 821 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 821 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD TAYYAB — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Wajid Ali Khokhar for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for recovery of maintenance against father of minor
Trial Court awarded maintenance at Rs.3000 per month which was reduced to Rs.1500 per month by the first Appellate Court
Father was bound by law to maintain his child, he attempted to avoid payment of maintenance relying on a document pertaining to the custody of the child
Both courts below had correctly found that such document was not binding
Impugned appellate judgment being not sustainable, constitutional petition was accepted.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This constitutional petition is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 26-6-2009 was partially accepted.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that inter alia the petitioner is the minor-son of respondent No.3, who through his mother filed a suit for recovery of maintenance. The said suit was resisted, issues framed, evidence led, whereafter the trial Court, seized of the matter, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000 per month with annual increase of 10% per annum, vide its judgment and decree dated 26-6-2009. Aggrieved, respondent No.3 filed an appeal which was partially accepted by the first appellate Court and the maintenance was reduced to Rs.1500 per month, vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition, has been perused.
4. There can be no escape from the fact that the petitioner is admittedly the son of respondent No.3 who being father is bound by law to maintain his child. The petitioner is about 6/7 years of age and is currently school going. The petitioner's mother is a school teacher, which fact is also admitted by the opposite side. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is engaged in a business and maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month was claimed. The Family Court, seized of the matted, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000 per month keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties and the evidence on record. Respondent No.3 had attempted to avoid payment of maintenance relying on a document allegedly executed between the parties pertaining to the custody of the petitioner. Both Courts below have correctly held that the said document is not binding. Incidentally, in the written statement, no defence against payment of maintenance was taken. The appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009, reduced the maintenance from Rs.3,000 to Rs.1,500 per month with 10% annual increase. No reason whatsoever is disclosed in the impugned judgment reducing the maintenance of the minor-petitioner. The finding of the Family Court appears to be supported by cogent reasons and based on material evidence on the record. It has also been noted that no documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent to show his income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 11-9-2009 is not sustainable in law, consequently the same is set aside, as a consequence whereof the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 26-6-2009 shall now hold the field.
5. Petition accepted in the above terms. A.R.K./M-127/L Petition accepted.