1992 PLP 219 (MLD)
MAOSOOD AHMAD SOHAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 219 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Am ir Malik‑ I |
| Parties | MAOSOOD AHMAD SOHAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 219 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 219 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Am ir Malik‑ I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 219 (MLD) (MAOSOOD AHMAD SOHAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abbas Mirza for Petitioner.
- Mian Muhammad Ilyas for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑"Maintenance"‑‑‑Meaning‑‑ Expenses of delivery of child whether "maintenance"‑‑‑"Maintenance" means keeping in existence, to preserve, to support, to make good‑‑‑Maintenance would include food, raiment, lodging and other necessary expenses for mental and physical well being‑‑‑Physical and mental well being of wife needed delivery of child as well‑‑‑Grant of delivery expenses was, thus, a part of the maintenance. Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary and D.F. Mulla on Mahomedan Law rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Ilyas for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1991. Maqsood Ahmad Sohail petitioner and Mst. Abida Hanif respondent were husband and wife. They having fell out, she moved an application for maintenance with the Conciliation Court which was granted at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month w.e.f. 1‑2‑1990 to 14‑5‑1991. In the meantime she also delivered a child on 13‑9‑1990 and the expenses thereof (Rs.5,500) were also granted.
2. In revision‑ the Deputy Commissioner/Collector reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs.1,000 per month.
3. In the present writ petition the petitioner husband has challenged the grant of maintenance from 13‑9‑1990 onward and also the amount of Rs.5,500 on account of delivery expenses.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice of divorce having been issued on 19‑4‑1990, the divorce became effective on 18‑7‑1990 or at the most on 13‑9‑1990 when the child was delivered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that when the first notice of divorce was given and it was found that the respondent was pregnant the proceedings were discontinued and the petitioner himself withdrew the notice of first Talaq and pronounced second written Talaq of which notice was given to the Chairman. These are factual aspects and need not be gone into in the writ jurisdiction.
5. The writ petition was admitted to the extent whether the expenses of delivery of child could have been granted by the Conciliation Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that `maintenance' means maintenance simpliciter and did not include the said expenses. To the contrary is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. Maintenance, as per Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary means "keeping in existence, to preserve, to support, to make good". For actual life of the respondent the delivery of the child was a must. So to keep the support the expense of delivery was to be considered as included in `maintenance'. As per D.F. Mulla in his commentary on Mahomedan Law `maintenance' includes fwd, raiment and lodging and' other necessary expenses for mental and physical well‑being". The physical and mental well‑being of the respondent needed the‑delivery of the child as well. Hence the grant of Rs.5,500 as delivery expenses as part of the maintenance was correctly granted by the Conciliation Court.
6. The, writ petition is, therefore, dismissed A.A./M‑143/1 Petition dismissed.