1988 PLP 1332 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1332 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Res judicata, (b) Muhammadan Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1332 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Res judicata, (b) Muhammadan Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1332 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1332 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Birjees Nagy, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
- Birjees Nagy, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-5-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.2201 of 1983). --Judgment relied upon by petitioner operating as res judicata was in the same proceedings--Appeals filed by both the parties against the same order were heard and disposed of at different stages--Held, in such situation, it could not at all be said that the order in disposal of one appeal would operate as ret judicata against the order in the other appeal.
Liability of father to maintain his minor children--Father failing to make deposit in pursuance of interim order passed by Supreme Court- Supreme Court directed that arrears of maintenance be realised from father immediately by attaching his salary for necessary period until all the arrears were recovered.
Judgment & Decree
Birjees Nagy, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a father in a family/ maintenance matter, from judgment dated 28‑5‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his Constitutional Petition disputing his liability to pay maintenance for his children, was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. The question of the liability of the petitioner to maintain his minor children, as directed by the trial Court, cannot be seriously disputed. The learned counsel, however, strenuously argued that the amount fixed as maintenance for the minors is excessive. He has also contended that the appellate order impugned before the High Court was hit by the principle of res judicata.
3. On merits we feel satisfied that findings of fact in the determination of the amount of maintenance do not suffer any infirmity, legal or otherwise, justifying our interference in the order of the High Court.
4. Regarding res judicata, it was pointed out to the learned a counsel that the question does not arise, because the judgment relied Upon by him operating as res judicata, was in the same proceedings in which the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance. What had happened that the appeals, filed by both the parties against the same order were heard and disposed Of at different stages. In such situation, it cannot at all be said that the order in disposal of the one appeal will operate as res judicata against the order in the other appeal.
5. The learned counsel realised the fallacy in his argument and could not press this point any further.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification for interference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Before this judgment is closed, the office has pointed out that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner might have made the deposit in pursuance of the interim order passed by B this Court on 10‑8‑1983. If that is so, in that case, it is directed that the arrears of maintenance shall be realized from the petitioner immediately by attaching his salary for necessary period until all arrears are recovered. This is without prejudice to other modes of recovery. M.B.A./M‑460/S Petition dismissed.