2002 PLP 1526 (MLD)
Mst. MUSARRAT KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1526 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Sabir, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUSARRAT KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1526 (MLD)?
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 2002 PLP 1526 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Sabir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1526 (MLD) (Mst. MUSARRAT KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondent No. l
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.5, 14(2)(c) & Sched.‑‑‑Suit for maintenance‑‑‑Appeal, maintainability of‑‑‑Suit filed by plaintiff for maintenance for herself as well as for her minor daughter was decreed by Trial Court and Appellate Court, in appeal, partly accepted appeal and maintenance allowance granted to plaintiff was set aside whereas maintenance granted to minor daughter was maintained‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No appeal under S.14(2)(c) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was maintainable against maintenance of Rs.500 or less per month‑‑‑Maintenance allowance in case having been granted to plaintiff at rate of Rs.500 per month, judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was not appealable ‑‑‑Appellate Court being not competent to entertain appeal, order passed by it was coram non judice and was of no legal effect.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab dated 24‑6‑2000, whereby, he partly set aside the decree of the Trial Court dated 6‑5‑2000 allowing maintenance to the, petitioner at the rate of Rs.500 per month, however, he maintained the maintenance of the minor.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Musarrat Khatoon petitioner filed a suit for maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter against respondent No. l Zafar Ali. The suit, after contest, was decreed on 6‑5‑2000 and maintenance was granted to both the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.500 per month each. Respondent No. l assailed the judgment of the trial Court in appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 before the learned Additional District Judge, who partly accepted the appeal and maintenance allowance granted to the petitioner was set aside, whereas, maintenance granted to the minor was maintained.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under section 14(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal is maintainable against the maintenance of Rs.,500 or less per months: that in the instant case, maintenance allowance was granted to each of the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.500 per month, therefore, judgment of the trial Court was not appealable. Learned counsel for respondent No. l concedes this proposition of law
4. Heard, Record perused. The perusal of section 14 of the Act (ibid) indicates that the appeal was not maintainable in the present case. The learned Additional District Judge was not competent to entertain the appeal, therefore, the impugned order passed by him in coram non judice. Accordingly this petition is accepted and the impunged order is declared to be without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. H.B.T./M‑1165/L Petition accepted.