1991 PLP 362 (SCMR)
EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus SHAHNAZ BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 362 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus SHAHNAZ BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 362 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 362 (SCMR) (EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus SHAHNAZ BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Aziz-ud-Din Ahmed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990.
- Raja Aziz‑ud‑Din Ahmed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-10-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No. 573 of 1988).
S. 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
No good ground existed for interference with finding of Family Court fixing rate of maintenance
Supreme Court refused to interfere with finding of Court, however, in view of straitened circumstances of petitioner, he was allowed to pay balance of maintenance allowance in instalments with penal conquences on failure to make due payments.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. No good ground exists for interfering with the finding of the Family Courts fixing the maintenance of the respondent at Rs.1,000 per month. However, in view of the straitened circumstances of the petitioner he is allowed to pay the balance of the maintenance allowance due in 17 equal monthly instalments; each instalment shall be paid by the 15th of every succeeding month. Thus the first instalment shall be paid on the 15th February, 1990. In case of default in payment of any instalment the entire balance i.e. the amount then due shall be payable in lump sum. This petition stands disposed of with the above directions. H.B.T./E‑19/S Order accordingly.