2002 PLP M (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAIMA RAFIQUE (Minor) and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP M (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAIMA RAFIQUE (Minor) and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP M (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP M (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP M (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAIMA RAFIQUE (Minor) and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 12‑6‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 18643 of 2000). West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.5 & Sched.‑‑-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Maintenance allowance‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by .the Courts below‑‑ Courts below had fixed Rs.1,000 per month as maintenance allowance of the minor from the date of the institution of the suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such amount being reasonable and justified‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law‑‑‑Order passed by the Courts ,below was maintained by Supreme Court and leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12‑6‑2001 of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. We have heard the arguments and have gone through the impugned order which is in our opinion is based on proper reasoning. The lower Courts and the learned Lahore High Court have decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.1,000 per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent Saima Rafique (minor) from the date of the institution of the suit which in our view is quite reasonable and justified. This Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law. The impugned order is maintained, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑397/S Petition dismissed.