2007 PLP 727 (CLC)
SHAKEEL AZHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 727 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAKEEL AZHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 727 (CLC)?
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 2007 PLP 727 (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: 2007 PLP 727 (CLC) (SHAKEEL AZHAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Asif Qayyum for Petitioner.
- Raja Saghir-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sehed.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Respondents were minor son and ex-wife of the petitioner
Ex-wife of petitioner in a suit was denied maintenance with reference to a decree granted to her on the basis of Khula, whereas minor child was granted maintenance for the last two years
Appeal of petitioner against judgment of the Trial Court having been dismissed by Appellate Court being not competent, petitioner filed constitutional petition
Petitioner had claimed that past maintenance could not be allowed to the minor
Minor, held, was rightly granted past maintenance in circumstances
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 21-2-2001, respondents Nos.3 and 4 who are respectively the minor son and ex wife of the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month with effect from two years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. Respondent No.4 was denied maintenance with reference to a decree granted to her on the basis of Khula whereas respondent No.3 i.e. the minor child was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month with effect from the month of July, 1999. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujjar Khan, being incompetent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir PLD 1958 (W.P.) 596 contends that the past maintenance could not have been allowed to the minors. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the ease of Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Asghar and 3 others PLD 1991 SC 543 contends that the past maintenance to the minor can lawfully be granted.
3. I have gone through the copies of available records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the only dispute is regarding the past maintenance. The said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was duly referred to by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case cited (supra) and dissented from with the observation made therein and held that it looks unfair while the wife gets past maintenance, the children should not be deprived of this benefit. In this view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-21/L Petition dismissed.