1986 PLP 853 (CLC)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR
| Citation | 1986 PLP 853 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 853 (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 1986 PLP 853 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 853 (CLC) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- Ch.Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S 5‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. Maintenance‑‑Assessment of amount‑‑Courts below concurrently assel amount of maintenance‑‑No misreading/non‑reading of material evidence was pointed out which might have affected judgments of Courts be Held, no case for interference with judgment and decree of C below in exercise of Constitutional power of High Court was mad in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S 5‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. Maintenance‑‑Assessment of amount‑‑Courts below concurrently assel amount of maintenance‑‑No misreading/non‑reading of material evidence was pointed out which might have affected judgments of Courts be Held, no case for interference with judgment and decree of C below in exercise of Constitutional power of High Court was mad in circumstances Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner. Ch.Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents. Through this Constitutional Petition Faqir Muhammad petition wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 29‑2‑1984 and 3‑9 passed by Guardian Judge and Additional District Judge, Bahawal respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that Mst. Sajida Parveen and Shehbaz Kausar respondents No.3 and 4 are the minor daughters of Faqir Muhammad petitioner. They filed application for maintenance through Mst. Jameela Bibi, their mother as next friends before Judge Family Court, Bahawalnagar. The application was resisted whereon two issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment, dated 29‑2‑1984 allowed maintenance @ Rs. 100 each p.m. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge on 3‑9‑1984, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance was not assessed by respondents No.l and 2 properly, inasmuch as, the petitioner has no means to pay Rs.200 p.m. and that the evidence produced by the petitioner was not properly read and appreciated. 4. 1 have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. I find that the learned Courts below have not flouted the provisions of the relevant law and have considered and decided the question of maintenance in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. The learned Courts below have concurrently assessed the maintenance @ 8.100 each p.m. The learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading/non‑reading of materials evidence which might have affected the judgments of the learned Courts below. For all these reasons, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned Judgment and decree of the Court is below in exercise of the Constitutional power of this Court, is made out. Dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Writ refused.