2007 PLP 16 (CLC)
SAEED AHMED SHAKIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 16 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED AHMED SHAKIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 16 (CLC)?
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 2007 PLP 16 (CLC)?
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: 2007 PLP 16 (CLC) (SAEED AHMED SHAKIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Masood and Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Shamsher Ahmad Usmani for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Trial Court decreed suit allowing maintenance allowance to minor to the tune of Rs.4,000 per month
Appellate Court partly allowed appeal of petitioner against judgment of the Trial Court and reduced quantum of maintenance allowance from Rs.4,000, per month to Rs.3,000 per month
Constitutional petition filed against judgment and decrees of the both Courts below was disposed of by High Court and remanded case to the Trial Court to clarify as to whether petitioner had been sending remittance to respondent
Trial Court clarified the question of remittance that petitioner had been paying amount to the respondent
Petitioner had divorced the respondent and after divorced she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance
Payments made after the period of divorce, obviously were the payments towards the maintenance of the minor
Said amount was not paid to the divorced wife for any other purpose as relationship between the spouses had ceased
Such payments to divorced wife, were to be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance to the minor
Impugned decision of the Courts below were modified allowing the adjustment of the remittances by the petitioner towards maintenance allowance of the minor.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that respondent No.3 instituted a suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner in the Family Court at Samundari. The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement on 11-7-2000. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 26-7-2001 and allowed maintenance allowance to the minor to the tune of Rs.4,000 per month. The Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the quantum of maintenance allowance from Rs.4,000 per month to Rs.3,000 per month vide judgment and decree dated 20-11-2001. Both the above judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were challenged in Writ Petition No.25 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20-6-2002 wherein this Court remanded the case to the trial Court to clarify as to whether the petitioner has been sending remittances to respondent No.3 till 21-1-2001.
2. The learned trial Court, in the second round of litigation, clarified the question of remittances. The relevant part of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15-3-2003 passed by learned Judge, Family Court is reproduced as under:-- "The defendant had been paying the amounts to the plaintiff till 1-1-2001. The amounts which have been sent by the defendant to the plaintiff have been proved."
3. The learned Appellate Court has drawn conclusion that defendant/appellant has been paying the amount to the plaintiff/ respondent No.3 upto 1-1-2001.
4. Both the Courts below failed to take the remittances towards the payment of maintenance allowance of the minor, on the score that since the petitioner has disowned the minor being her daughter, therefore, the question of payment of the maintenance to such issue does not arise.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner divorced respondent No.3 on 25-8-1999. After divorce, the divorced wife is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The payments made after the period of divorce to respondent No.3, obviously are the payments towards the maintenance of the minor. The said amount was not paid to the divorced wife for any other purpose as the relationship between the spouse ceased. Such payment to respondent No.3 are to be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance to the minor.
6. For the foregoing discussion, this petition is accepted and the impugned decisions of the Courts below are modified allowing the adjustment of the remittances by the petitioner, towards the maintenance allowance of the minor. The remittances by the petitioner, after the divorce, be adjusted towards maintenance allowance of the minor. Disposed of with the above modification. H.B.T./S-181/L Petition accepted.