2006 PLP 1022 (MLD)
NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus AZIZAN BIBI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1022 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus AZIZAN BIBI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1022 (MLD)?
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 2006 PLP 1022 (MLD)?
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: 2006 PLP 1022 (MLD) (NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus AZIZAN BIBI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain for Respondent No.1.
- 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 has fully supported the impugned order and has stated that Rs.500 was totally insufficient amount and inadequate in the present times which do not meet the requirements of a person regarding his needs.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5, Sched. & S.14(2)(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Maintenance, suit for
Increase in rate of maintenance
Order of Appellate Court whereby rate of maintenance was increased from Rs.500 to Rs.1000 per month, had been challenged in the constitutional petition
Appeal against Rs.1000 or less being not maintainable, Appellate Court had passed impugned order in excess of its jurisdiction--Order of Appellate Court, in circumstances, was nullity as same had been passed without any authority
Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
The petitioner has challenged in the instant writ petition order passed by respondent No.3 dated 29-5-2004 wherein the learned Court accepted the appeal and increased the rate of maintenance from Rs.500 to Rs.1000 per month from the date of institution of the suit till the subsistence of marriage between the parties. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order to the extent of maintenance allowance modified and enhanced in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the learned trial Court has granted Rs.1000 per month to respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 30-10-2003. He has further added that no appeal lies against the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 or less. In support of his contention he places reliance on the judgment In the case of "Arshad Ali v. Additional District Judge, Yehari and others" (2002 CLC 1450).
3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 has fully supported the impugned order and has stated that Rs.500 was totally insufficient amount and inadequate in the present times which do not meet the requirements of a person regarding his needs.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
5. Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is re-produced as under:-- "(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree by Family Court: (c) for maintenance of rupees (one thousand) or less per month."
6. Mere perusal of above provisions of law that appeal against Rs.1000 or less is not maintainable. The learned Court has passed the impugned order in excess of its jurisdiction. Order of the learned lower Appellate Court is thus nullity and is declared, having been passed without any authority. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and impugned order dated 29-5-2004 is set aside. No order as to costs. H.B.T./N-34/L Petition accepted.