2003 SCMR 930 (PLP)
ZULQARNAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Miss FARRAH SHUA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 SCMR 930 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | ZULQARNAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Miss FARRAH SHUA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 SCMR 930 (PLP)?
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 2003 SCMR 930 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 SCMR 930 (PLP) (ZULQARNAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Miss FARRAH SHUA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from Order of Lahore High-Court, Lahore, dated 11-4-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 19161 of 1999).
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Maintenance allowance, award of
Family court fixed a sum of Rs.2,000 per month as maintenance allowance to the minor child and Appellate Court reduced the amount to Rs.1,000 per month
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Appellate Court
No legal or factual infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Court which was not disturbed by High Court in the matter of award of maintenance allowance in favour of the minor was found
With inflation in the cost of life, amount fixed by the Courts below was neither unreasonable nor excessive
No substantial question of law of general public importance was involved in the petition
Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Sole question involved in this petition for leave to appeal is whether learned High Court was justified in affirming the award of Rs.1,000 per month by way of maintenance allowance to the minor child of the petitioner?
2. As a result of proceedings in a suit, Family Court awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000 per month in favour of the minor, which was impugned by the petitioner before the District Court. District Judge, Mianwali, on re-consideration, reduced the amount from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs.1,000 per month. Petitioner, being still dissatisfied, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court where he has been non-suited.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner .and scanned the record. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the record, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Court and not disturbed by the High Court in the matter of award of A maintenance allowance in favour of the minor. Even otherwise, with inflation in the cost of life amount fixed by the Courts below is neither unreasonable nor excessive. Furthermore, no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Q.M.H./Z-109/S Petition dismissed.