2019 PLP 32 (CLCN)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 32 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 32 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 32 (CLCN)?
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: 2019 PLP 32 (CLCN) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Naveed Abbas for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor
Quantum of maintenance allowance
Scope
Family Court decreed Rs. 8,000/- as maintenance allowance of the minor son
Petitioner/ father contended that awarded maintenance allowance was beyond his means as he also had to maintain his elderly parents and younger brothers
Minor was, admittedly, son of the petitioner and petitioner was legally and morally bound to maintain him (minor)
Petitioner could not be allowed to shed of said responsibility on the pretext that he also had some other dependants
Family Court was to determine the amount of maintenance, as such function was vested with its exclusive jurisdiction
High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction could neither substitute findings of fact recorded by the Family Court nor give its opinion about adequacy or quality of evidence
Appraisal of evidence, assessment of its evidentiary value and drawing inference therefrom was within the competency of the Family Court
Petitioner's monthly salary was, admittedly, more than Rs. 34,000/- per month, therefore, the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the Family Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court was neither harsh nor exorbitant rather in consonance with the means of the petitioner
No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity of judgments and decrees dated 07.02.2012 and 15.11.2012 passed by the learned courts below. Through the former learned Judge Family Court awarded maintenance allowance to minor Muhammad Hayyan at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month with 10% annual increase from the date of institution of suit till his majority and through the latter learned lower appellate court while partially accepting the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court maintained the quantum of maintenance allowance of minor, however, disallowed automatic annual increase of 10%.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments and decrees of the learned courts below with regard to the quantum of maintenance allowance of the minor are based on surmises and conjectures and result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the maintenance allowance awarded to minor is beyond the means of the petitioner; that no doubt monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.33/34 thousands yet he has to maintain his elderly parents and younger brothers as such he is unable to pay the maintenance allowance to the minor at such an exorbitant rate; that the evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and the conclusions drawn therefrom are liable to be struck down.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
4. Admittedly, the minor Muhammad Hayyan is a legitimate son of the petitioner and he is legally and morally bound to maintain him and he cannot be allowed to shed of this responsibility on the pretext that he also has some other dependants. Moreover, to determine the amount of maintenance was the function of the Family Court, which is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters. This Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction can neither substitute finding of fact recorded by the family court nor give its opinion about adequacy or quality of evidence. Appraisal of evidence, assessment of its evidentiary value and drawing inference there from was within the competency of the family court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's monthly salary is more than Rs. 34,000/- per month, therefore, the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge Family Court and affirmed by the learned lower appellate court is neither harsh nor exorbitant rather in consonance with the means of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed in-limine. MQ/M-17/L Petition dismissed.