1989 PLP 1995 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1995 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1995 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1995 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1995 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Mchboob, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor fahi, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18th December, 1988 passed in Writ Petition No.475 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether past maintenance could not be granted and whether High Court exceeded its powers under Art.199 by granting past maintenance. Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 596; Hedaya; Hamilton's Second Edn. p. 149; Baillie's Muslim Law, Third Impression, 1957, p. 460 and Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3‑ others PLD 1972 SC 302 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J: ‑Mst. Razia Begum filed a suit against the petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and for three minor children from September 1982 onwards. After contest, the suit was dismissed by the Judge, Family Court, Jhelum, by judgment, dated 15‑3‑1988. However, on appeal, the Additional D1strict Judge, Jhelum reversed the decree passed by the trial Court and allowed maintenance to the minor children from the date of the institution of the suit onwards. Still aggrieved, the respondents filed a constitutional petition and prayed for an order for grant of past maintenance from September, 1982. The learned Judge in Chamber allowed the petition and awarded maintenance w.e.f. 3‑9‑1982. The petitioner has questioned this judgment in this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on a judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 596 in support of his submission that past maintenance could not be granted, wherein relying on the Hedaya (Hamilton's A Second Edition, page 149), Bailie's Muslim Law Third Impression, 1957, page 460 and Urdu translation of Durral Mukhtar by MauM Khurram Ali, it was observed at page 599 of the report as follows:‑ "It also seems clear from the authorities on Hanafi Law that neither the child nor the person who maintains it can claim past maintenance from the father unless the same has been previously fixed either by a decree of the Court or by the father himself. This proposition seems to flow from the propositions mentioned in the preceding paragraph and is supported by the exposition of the law relating to maintenance in the textbooks" The learned counsel further submitted that the cases relied upon by the learned Judge in the High Court are d1stinguishable, inasmuch as in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others (PLD 1972 S C 302) the order for past maintenance passed by the Arbitration Council was not d1sturbed by this Court, but in the present case, even the Additional D1strict Judge did not pass any order for past maintenance. It is also submitted that the High Court exceeded its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
3. The above submissions, inter alia, require consideration. We would, therefore, grant leave. Security Rs.2,500.
4. Stay on furnishing security for the amount of past maintenance, i.e., September, 1982 to the date of the suit. M.A.K./G‑207/S Leave granted