2017 PLP 316 (YLRN)
SOBIA HINA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 316 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Ali Akbar Qureshi, J |
| Parties | SOBIA HINA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 316 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 316 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Ali Akbar Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 316 (YLRN) (SOBIA HINA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioners.
- Aftab Aalam Yasir for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower
House measuring 5 Marlas had already been transferred in favour of wife
Demand of wife with regard to dower had fully been satisfied
Wife who was not willing to rehabilitate and was living apart from the husband without any reason was not entitled for maintenance allowance until she resorted conjugal rights
Minors/children were school going, keeping in view the expenses being incurred on the education and prices of necessary commodities for maintenance of minors was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month instead of Rs. 1000/- fixed by the Appellate Court from the date of institution of suit till they attained the age of majority
Judgment of Appellate Court was modified to the extent of maintenance of minors whereas rest of the judgment was affirmed
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.
This writ petition calls in question the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 and 27.07.2009 passed by learned Court's below whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was partly decreed.
2. Shortly the facts as stated in the case, that the petitioners filed a consolidated suit, for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.9000/- per month including previous two years, recovery of dower in the form of five marlas house, jewelry weighing five Tolas and delivery expense etc.
3. The petitioner No.1 Mst. Sobia entered into marriage with the respondent and out of this wedlock four children were born but because of certain dispute, presently, the petitioner is living with four children separate to the respondent.
4. The suit filed by the petitioners partly decreed, by which the petitioner No.1 Mst. Sobia was held disentitled to recover the maintenance, while the minor children were given maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month. As regard the dower amount, it is held that the same will be paid in the form of construction of a house which has been given by the respondent through registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.1.
5. During the course of arguments, both the parties were given a chance for reconciliation but failed.
6. As regards the dower amount, the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that according to the terms of Nikahnama, the house measuring 5 marlas, has already been transferred through a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the demand of the petitioner regarding the dower has fully been satisfied.
7. Regarding the maintenance of the petitioner No.1, the respondent present in the Court showed his willingness to rehabilitate the petitioner but she refused , it appears that she is living apart from the respondent without any reason, therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance until she restored conjugal rights. As weight of the jewelry is not mentioned in the Nikahnama, so the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court on this issue are affirmed.
8. So far as, maintenance of the minors are concerned, it is mentioned in the record, that all the four minors are school going children so keeping in view the expenses being incurred on the education and the price of necessary commodities arising on day to day basis, I enhanced the per head, per month maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.1000/- fixed by learned appellate Court from the date of institution of the suit till they attain the age of majority.
9. Resultantly, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the extent of the maintenance of the minor whereas rest of the judgment is affirmed.
10. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the terms mentioned above with no orders as to cost. ZC/S-9/L Petition disposed of.