2003 PLP 764 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEHMOOD AHMAD alias ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 764 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEHMOOD AHMAD alias ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 764 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 764 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 764 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEHMOOD AHMAD alias ASGHAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 2002.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent did not file any appeal for her suit praying for grant of maintenance allowance from January, 1999 shall be deemed to have been dismissed and if she was feeling aggrieved, she should have filed appeal to that extent and prayed for granting of maintenance allowance for the said period of six months also as such the learned Judge of the High Court in the Constitutional petition should not have modified the judgment. The grant of maintenance allowance from January, 1999 cannot be objected to by the petitioner as he was otherwise bound to maintain her daughter during the said period of six months back. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment in exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution, which is just and equitable.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑7‑2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.21139 of 2000). ‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Maintenance of minor children‑‑‑Enhancing of period of maintenance by High Court while deciding Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintenance of two children was fixed by Family Court at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month for each child from the date of institution of the suit and not from the date as prayed in the suit‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court was maintained by Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court, while deciding Constitutional petition filed by the father of minors modified the judgment of Family Court and granted maintenance to the minors from the date as prayed in the suit‑‑‑Contention of the father of the minors was that no appeal was filed by minors against the judgment and decree passed in their favour thus High Court could not enhance the period for which the maintenance allowance was to be recovered‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Grant of maintenance allowance from the date prayed in the plaint could not be objected to by the father as he was otherwise bound to maintain his daughters during the period prior to filing of the suit‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court as the same was just and equitable‑‑‑No illegality had been committed by the Courts below while granting maintenance allowance of two children at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month each‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 25th June, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑ This petition is directed against the judgment dated 4‑7‑2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which petition filed by the petitioner against the judgments of the two Courts below in a suit filed by respondent for the recovery of maintenance allowance of the two children has been dismissed with the modification of the judgments of the Courts below by granting maintenance allowance from January, 1999 instead of July, 1999 to one of the children.
2. The respondents filed a suit on 29‑7‑1999 before Judge, Family Court, Okara, for recovery of maintenance allowance for two children i.e. son and daughter at the rate of Rs.3,000 p.m. per child from January, 1999. It was contested by the petitioner. The learned Judge, Family Court through judgment dated 27‑5‑2000 decreed the suit and granted maintenance allowance of each child at the rate of Rs.1,500 p.m. from July, 1999, i.e. the date of institution of this suit and not from 1st January, 1999 as prayed for.
3. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Okara which was dismissed on 27‑9‑2000 against which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 4‑7‑2001 with the modification as observed above of the judgment to grant maintenance allowance from January, 1999.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent did not file any appeal for her suit praying for grant of maintenance allowance from January, 1999 shall be deemed to have been dismissed and if she was feeling aggrieved, she should have filed appeal to that extent and prayed for granting of maintenance allowance for the said period of six months also as such the learned Judge of the High Court in the Constitutional petition should not have modified the judgment. The grant of maintenance allowance from January, 1999 cannot be objected to by the petitioner as he was otherwise bound to maintain her daughter during the said period of six months back. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment in exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution, which is just and equitable.
7. As to the merits of the case, no illegality has been committed by the Courts below while granting maintenance allowance of the two children of the petitioner at the rat of Rs.1,500 p.m. each,.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./A-258/S Petition dismissed.