2009 PLP 724 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD FAISAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ-UL-REHMAN KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 724 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAISAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ-UL-REHMAN KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 724 (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 2009 PLP 724 (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: 2009 PLP 724 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD FAISAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ-UL-REHMAN KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saqib Gardner for Petitioner.
- Nadeem Iqbal Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Plea raised by petitioner was that his wife was living separately without any justification and he did not have enough sources to provide interim maintenance fixed by Family Court
Minors had their independent right to ask maintenance from their father, which right of minors could not be declined merely on the ground that father was not having sources to provide maintenance
Father was legally obliged to provide maintenance
Petitioner asserted that he was a cancer patient whereas he had entered into second marriage
Petitioner, in application, filed under S.25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of minors, raised the ground that he had sufficient financial resources to maintain and nourish his son and daughter
Such grounds raised stood belied from petitioner's own version and his conduct for non-compliance of the orders could entail penal action
Interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000 per month per child was justified and was maintained by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction--Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition as is aggrieved from the order, dated 30-7-2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court wherein he passed the order for interim maintenance allowance of minors at the rate of Rs.2000 each per month which shall be paid by the petitioner before 15th of every month in Court in a suit pending for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a retired (compulsorily) from Army on medical ground as he is a cancer patient and under treatment. He had not been paid dues from the army as yet and lacks the source of income.
2. It is argued that in case of retired Army personnel education and medical treatment is available free of costs. Further that respondent No.2 Mst. Shazia Zaheer wife of the petitioner is residing separately from the petitioner without any justification, hence interim maintenance order passed is illegal and at exorbitant rate.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted that the petitioner had approached the learned Guardian judge for custody of minors alleging therein that he is having sufficient financial resources to maintain and nourish his son and daughter. That the petitioner has entered into second marriage and running a business after taking loan. That father is bound to provide the maintenance to his children, which he has refused. That the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him for any relief and there is no illegality in the impugned interim order, which cannot be interfered in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on 2004 MLD 794 Lahore, 2006 YLR 1708 Lahore, 2007 YLR 1401 Lahore and 1972 PCr.LJ 1286 Lahore.
4. Heard.
5. The minors had their independent right to ask maintenance from the father. This right of the minors cannot be declined merely on the ground that father is not having source to provide them maintenance. It is a legal obligation that a father must provide maintenance and the duty rests upon him. The prayer made through this writ petition to recall the order for interim maintenance on the sole ground raised that the petitioner is a cancer patient whereas he has entered into second marriage very recently and also in a application filed under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of minors has raised the ground that he is having sufficient financial resources to maintain and nourish his son and daughter. These grounds raised stand belied from his own version. The conduct of the petitioner for non-compliance of the orders may also entail penal action. The interim maintenance in the tune of Rs.2000 each per month, is not exorbitant in these days. The impugned interim maintenance order was justified and in the circumstances cannot be interfered with by exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Petition stands dismissed. M.H./M-87/L Petition allowed.