1994 PLP 157 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus SHAZIA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 157 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus SHAZIA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 157 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 157 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 157 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus SHAZIA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdul Hameed Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition was filed against interim order passed by Appellate Court below according to which petitioner/appellant was directed to make up deficiency in court-fee but no consequential order was passed by the said Court
Constitutional petition was dismissed being premature.
Judgment & Decree
A suit for maintenance was filed by Mst. Mumtaz Bibi respondent No.4 alongwith her two minor children Mst. Shazia and Shahid Nadeem respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively on 27-6-1992. The petitioner contested the same and accordingly issues were framed. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jaranwala, through his order, dated 12-12-1992 accepted the application and directed that Rs500 per month shall be paid to each from the date of institution of the application. A further direction for the payment of Rs.10,000 as hospital expenses to respondent No.4 was also made. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, directed the petitioner to affix ad valorem court-fee of Rs.14,235 and adjourned the case to 10-2-1993. Hence this Constitutional petition. Notices were issued to the respondents but none has appeared in spite of service. Accordingly they are proceeded ex parte. It is argued by the learned counsel that the direction made by the learned Additional District Judge is against the law declared by this Court reported in 1990 ALD 203(2) titled Khurshid Ahmed v. Masuda Begum, etc. I have considered the arguments. The writ petition is premature as the same is filed against an interim order directing the petitioner to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. However, no consequential order has yet been passed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as being premature and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on 12-5-1993 who shall decide this issue after affording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1242/L Petition dismissed