2004 PLP 933 (YLR)
Malik SULTAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA YASMEEN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 933 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | Malik SULTAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA YASMEEN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 933 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 933 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 933 (YLR) (Malik SULTAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA YASMEEN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shakir Ali for Petitioner.
- Mrs. Moazma Hussnain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 2003.
- 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (wife and children of the petitioner) had filed a suit for maintenance during pendency whereof, on 20-11-2002, Judge, Family Court passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance for the children @ Rs.2,000 each per month for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.1,500 per month each for respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are admittedly studying in B.C.S. 3rd year, I.C.S. 1st year, Matric and 7th class respectively and their educational expenses are allegedly Rs.6,000 per month.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Suit for maintenance-- Deposit of interim maintenance-- Determination of amount of maintenance-- Family Court, during pendency of suit directed the defendant to deposit maintenance amount per month for four children/plaintiffs, being their educational expenses
Defendant resisted order of Family Court contending that though the children were studying in various classes, but Family Court while determining quantum of maintenance had not taken into consideration his financial resources as-he was jobless and a retired person whose monthly pension was Rs.1,304 only
Contention of the plaintiffs was that defendant, after his retirement, was serving as Administrative Officer and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 25, 000 beside pension and income from several investments made by him
Defendant neither had produced order of his termination from service nor could explain as to how he was living and maintaining in a rented house in Islamabad for the last five years after his alleged termination from service in a locality where monthly rent of residential accommodation was much more than what he had been asked to deposit by way of interim maintenance for his children
Ex facie defendant appearing to be a man of means, interim maintenance amount was rightly determined by Family Court. M. Saleem Ahmad Siddique v. Mst. Sabira Begum and others 2001 YLR 2329 ref.
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition-- Order for interim maintenance-- Constitutional petition against interim order was not maintainable unless such order was without jurisdiction
Family Court had jurisdiction to pass an order for interim maintenance
Interim maintenance allowance was always subject to variation and adjustment at the time of final decision which was given after recording evidence of parties. Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others 1998 MLD 624 Lah. Ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Shakir Ali for Petitioner. Mrs. Moazma Hussnain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 2003. With the concurrence' of the learned counsel for parties it is being treated as an admitted case.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (wife and children of the petitioner) had filed a suit for maintenance during pendency whereof, on 20-11-2002, Judge, Family Court passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance for the children @ Rs.2,000 each per month for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.1,500 per month each for respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are admittedly studying in B.C.S. 3rd year, I.C.S. 1st year, Matric and 7th class respectively and their educational expenses are allegedly Rs.6,000 per month.
3. The aforesaid order is assailed by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition on the grounds that it is arbitrary inasmuch as the petitioner is jobless and a retired person whose monthly pension is Rs.1,304 and while determining the quantum of maintenance his social status and the level of his financial resources was not kept in view. Reference was made in this behalf to M. Saleem Ahmad Siddique v. Mst. Sabira Begum and others 2001 YLR 2329 (Kar.). It was also urged that writ petition against an interim order is maintainable. Reliance was placed on Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others 1998 MLD 624 Lahore.
4. Writ petition is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard. Petition and the annexures appended therewith perused.
5. The petitioner had admitted in his written statement that his children viz. respondents Nos.2 to 5 are studying in various classes as mentioned hereinbefore. Educational. expenses of the said respondents are alleged as Rs.6,000 per month which is quite possible. It, is alleges in the plaint that the petitioner is serving as administrative officer and is drawing monthly salary of Rs.25,000 besides pension and income from several investments made by him.
6. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that service of the petitioner was terminated in 1998 and since then he is jobless and has no other income besides pension of Rs.1,304, does not appeal to mind for the reason that order of termination of service has not been produced nor it could be explained as to how the petitioner is living and maintaining himself in a rented house in Islamabad for the last 5 years after his alleged termination from service. He is admittedly residing in Constitutional Avenue, Sector-G, 5/2 Islamabad where the monthly rent or residential accommodation is much more than what he has been asked to deposit by way of interim maintenance for his children. Ex facie the petitioner appears to be a man of means.
7. Writ petition against an interim order is not maintainable unless such order is without jurisdiction. Judge, Family Court admittedly had the jurisdiction to pass an order for interim maintenance hence the case-law referred by the petitioner's counsel viz. 1998 MLD 624 (Lah.) is not applicable.
8. The other authority viz. 2001 YLR 2329 (Kar.) does not relate to interim order of maintenance. In the said writ petition final judgments/decrees of maintenance were assailed. Interim maintenance allowance is always subject to variation and adjustment at the time of final decision which is given after recording the evidence of the parties.
9. For the reasons Mated above this writ petition being incompetent is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./S-758/L Petition dismissed.