2018 PLP 43 (CLCN)
SHAMENEH HAIDER and 2 others — Petitioners Versus HAIDER ALI KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 43 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMENEH HAIDER and 2 others — Petitioners Versus HAIDER ALI KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 43 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 43 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 43 (CLCN) (SHAMENEH HAIDER and 2 others — Petitioners Versus HAIDER ALI KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 17-A
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Interim maintenance of minor, quantum of
Father contended that Family Court had wrongly granted heavy amount as ad interim maintenance of the minors
Mother contended that constitutional petition of father against order under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was not maintainable
Father being dis-satisfied with the quantum of interim maintenance for minors had filed constitutional petition
Determination of adequacy or inadequacy of the quantum of maintenance would certainly require factual enquiry and evidence which could not be gone into in the proceedings under Art. 199 of the Constitution
High Court observed that constitutional petition was mis-conceived and not maintainable
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 5 & 6 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 10.05.2014, passed by the XVIth Family Judge Karachi (South) on application under section 17-A, Family Courts Act, (XXXV of 1964), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the petitioner in Family Suit No.1403 of 2013, allowing the maintenance to the minors, till disposal of the main suit, with the directions to the defendant to deposit the interim maintenance with the Nazir of that Court on or before 14th of each calendar month from May, 2014 onwards.
2. None is present for the petitioner to address the Court on her behalf and same was the position on the last date of hearing viz. 21.09.2016.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid Family Suit before the learned Family Judge, Karachi (South) for dissolution of marriage, recovery for Maintenance, Dower amount and Dowry Articles. Pending disposal of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17-A of the Act, praying therein for grant of ad-interim maintenance. The learned Family Judge allowed the interim maintenance to the minors @ 10,000/- per month for each minor in the aforementioned family suit, which is still pending trial. Manifestly, the petition against the impugned interim order, which is provisional in nature, just providing interim relief to the minor children, pending disposal of the main suit, is not maintainable, and, it was, therefore, that on 29.04.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to satisfy the Court about the maintainability of this petition, which was reiterated in order dated 21.08.2015.
5. From the face of record, the petitioner being dis-satisfied with the aforesaid quantum of interim maintenance, having been provided to the minor children of the petitioner, has filed the instant petition. It needs no reiteration that the determination of adequacy or inadequacy of the quantum of maintenance would certainly require factual enquiry and evidence, which cannot be gone into these proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is mis-conceived and not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner instead of addressing the question of maintainability of this petition, has chosen to remain absent. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Above are the reasons of short order announced by me on 31.10.2016, whereby this petition was dismissed. MQ/S-71/Sindh Petition dismisse