2007 PLP 402 (YLR)
Mst. NASIM AKTHAR and 2 others — Appellants Versus IQBAL AHMED CHAUDHARI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 402 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Muzammal Khan and Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NASIM AKTHAR and 2 others — Appellants Versus IQBAL AHMED CHAUDHARI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 402 (YLR)?
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 2007 PLP 402 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan and Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 402 (YLR) (Mst. NASIM AKTHAR and 2 others — Appellants Versus IQBAL AHMED CHAUDHARI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Siddique Awan for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Maintenance to minors
Custody of minors had been given to father by Guardian Judge
Mother's constitutional petition was dismissed
Minors, on their own, came back to live with mother and she filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance for said minors
Held, mother's right of hazanat was put to rest by dismissal of her constitutional petition and she was not entitled to claim maintenance allowance for minors who had reverted to her on their own
Father, in circumstances, could not be legally bound down to provide maintenance allowance for minors whose custody was handed over to him. Respondent No.1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellants assailed the judgment dated 2-2-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court, whereby on constitutional petition filed by respondent No.1, order dated 14-6-2005 directing him to pay interim maintenance, was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that custody of two minor daughters and a son was given by the learned Guardian Judge to respondent No.1 vide his order dated 2-12-2003. Dispute of guardianship attained finality by dismissal of constitutional petition by this Court, as far back as in the year 2003-04 and the custody of all the minors was handed over to respondent No.1. The minors of their own, came back to live with the appellant No.1 and she filed a suit for recovery of their maintenance allowance. Learned Judge Family Court cognizant of the suit on 14-6-2005 directed respondent No.1 to pay interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.900 per month for Mst. Asma minor. Respondent No.1 aggrieved of direction dated 14-6-2005, filed a constitutionalpetition, which was accepted as noted above. Appellants, thereafter, filed instant appeal and respondent No.1 in response to notice by this Court appeared.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. Undeniably, controversy regarding custody of the minors stood concluded by dismissal of appellant's constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.4490 of 2003 on 17-3-2003 and thereafter appellant's right of "Hazanat" was also put to rest by dismissal of another constitutional petition (Writ Petition No. 16131 of 2004), on 16-3-2004. After conclusion of this matter, appellant No.1 was not entitled to claim maintenance allowance if the minors have reverted to her of their own. In the given circumstances of this case, respondent No.1 cannot be legally bound down to provide maintenance allowance for the minors whose custody was handed over to him.
4. Besides the reasons noted above, we are not persuaded to form a different opinion to the one expressed in the impugned judgment and consequently, dismiss this appeal being devoid of any merit. There will be no order as to costs. F.B./N-114/L Appeal dismissed.