2008 PLP 585 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IRFAN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SARGODHA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 585 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRFAN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SARGODHA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 585 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 585 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 585 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IRFAN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SARGODHA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naseemullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched. & S.10
Interim maintenance granted from date of suit
Effect
Proceedings of suit would take effect from its institution
Retrospection could be relatable to period preceding date of institution of suit and not to period starting with its commencement
Such interim maintenance could not be termed as past maintenance.
S. 5, Sched. & S.10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scope
Interim maintenance granted by Family Court
Plea of petitioner that keeping in view his financial resources, rate of interim maintenance was exorbitant
Such question involving factual inquiry could not be sorted out in constitutional jurisdiction
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
S. 5, Sched., Ss.10 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Order of Family Court granting interim maintenance to minor
Impugned order was an interlocutory order, which had no effect of being a final order
Interlocutory order, unless bears characteristics and effect of a final order, could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.
This writ petition questions the legality of the order for interim maintenance allowance passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sargodha, in a suit filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3 the minor sons of the petitioner.
2. In the suit it was directed by the learned Judge Family Court that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner shall pay an interim maintenance allowance to the respondents Nos.2 and 3, the minor sons, at the rate of Rs.3,000 and Rs.2,000 per month, respectively. Thus, the total interim allowance to be paid by the petitioner was Rs.5,
000. It was also directed that the said interim maintenance allowance shall be payable from the date of institution of the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order for interim maintenance allowance could be passed only for the future and it could not be given retrospective effect under the law. The contention seems to be misconceived. The learned Judge Family Court granted the interim maintenance allowance only from the date of institution of the suit, which by any stretch of imagination could not be termed as the past maintenance. The proceedings of a suit take effect from its institution and as such any order, including the one for maintenance allowance, given effect from the date of institution, is an order for interim period on1y.,The retrospectively could be relatable to the period preceding the date of institution and not the period starting with the commencement of the suit.
4. The learned counsel has then asserted that the rate of maintenance allowance is exorbitant keeping in view the financial resources of the petitioner. This question, I am afraid, cannot be sorted out in the present proceedings, as it would involve factual enquiry.
5. I have considered the whole petition in the total perspective and have come to the conclusion that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the learned Judge Family Court while passing the impugned order, dated 5-11-2007. It goes without saying that the impugned order is also interlocutory order, which has not in any manner effect of being a final order. Unless an interlocutory order bears the characteristics and effect of a final order, it cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny in the proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. The upshot of the above is that the writ petition has no force, which is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./M-635/L Petition dismissed.