1989 PLP 1787 (SCMR)
SAJJAD HAIDER MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR (REVISIONAL AUTHORITY),
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1787 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SAJJAD HAIDER MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR (REVISIONAL AUTHORITY), |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1787 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1787 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1787 (SCMR) (SAJJAD HAIDER MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR (REVISIONAL AUTHORITY),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Munir Piracha, Advocate and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Shakoor Piracha, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8‑1‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1107 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.9‑‑Maintenance‑‑Questions raised were whether maintenance for children had been awarded on the application of their mother, who had since been divorced after the grant of maintenance to her, if so whether, it was permissible; whether admitted payments by the petitioner to the respondent during default period had been taken into account and whether the amount of maintenance had been correctly determined‑‑While the first two questions were settled in the Court with consent of the parties the third was found to involve question of fact which stood concluded in favour of petitioner and there being no challenge to it from respondent's side leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In a maintenance matter the only controversy now left for consideration in this ]cave to appeal petition relates to three questions which are essentially of fact:‑ (i) Whether, maintenance for children has been awarded on the application of their mother (respondent No.3) who, as stated, has since been divorced after the grant of maintenance to her. If so; whether, it was permissible. (ii) Whether admitted payments by the petitioner (husband) to the said respondent during the default period have been taken into account; and lastly, (iii) Whether, the amount of maintenance has been correctly determined. Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that while granting maintenance to the wife all her liabilities including the expenses on bringing up the children, whose custody is with her, were taken into account, and that, it was not a separate and independent application for the maintenance of the children. It is further argued that such approach in these matters according to learned counsel, has been approved by this Court in Ghulam Bari v. Mst. Kaneez Begum and others 1908 S C M R 1432(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner while being unable to contest the factual aspect` of the afore noticed argument of the learned counsel for the respondent expressed an apprehension that a separate application for maintenance of the children might now be filed which would put the petitioner in double jeopardy. Although the learned counsel for the respondent, when asked to clarify his client's position, to start with hesitated to take a firm stand, subsequently after consulting his client categorically stated that no such application will be moved for the maintenance of the children. On the second question after some discussion both the learned counsel agreed that the payments of Rs.9,100 made by the petitioner to respondent No‑3 shall be given adjustment when the maintenance is realised. The last point relates to the determination of the amount for maintenance. It is one of fact and stands concluded, by a reduction of doubtful validity but it having gone in favour of the petitioner and there being no challenge from respondent's side in this behalf we would not like to make any further comment. None of the points raised has any force. Leave to appeal with the foregoing observations, therefore, is refused. MA.K/S‑307/S Leave refused.