2006 PLP 1647 (CLC)
MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1647 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV. of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1647 (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 2006 PLP 1647 (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: 2006 PLP 1647 (CLC) (MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Waseem for Petitioner.
- Sh. Ghulam Muhammad for Respondents.
- 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The petitioner paid the past maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.800 per month, partly i.e. Rs.16,000 on 5-7-2005 and thereafter paid another amount of Rs.2,400 at the time of hearing of this petition to the learned counsel for respondent No.4. Record revealed that the increase of maintenance allowance made by respondent No.1 was not at all justified. from the evidence of the parties. Besides the evidence recorded by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 produced a certificate issued by Admin Manager of Mehraan Ramzan Textile Mills Limited, according to which petitioner is being paid monthly salary of Rs.2,900 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2002. It is very harsh to burden the petitioner with the maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 per month out of his salary of Rs.2,900 per month, even ignoring his other responsibilities/liabilities. Claim of respondent No.4 that maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month is meagre, as she has to maintain his minor child Husnain as well, was not justified. In these proceedings maintenance allowance was only awarded to respondent No.4 who is living in a village and according to earnings of the petitioners, maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month was correctly fixed by respondent No.2 and the revisional Court fell into an error of law in enhancing the same, beyond the capacity of the petitioner and contrary to evidence on the record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Enhancement of
Nazim, Union Council in post-remand proceedings reduced maintenance allowance from Rs.3,000 per month to Rs.800 per month
On revision, District Officer Revenue, enhanced maintenance allowance from Rs.800 per month to Rs.2,500 per month
Increase of maintenance allowance was not at all justified from evidence on record
According to certificate issued by employer of the petitioner, monthly salary of petitioner was Rs.2,900 per month; it was very harsh to burden petitioner with maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 per month out of salary of Rs.2,900 per month, even ignoring his other responsibilities/liabilities
Respondent to whom maintenance allowance was granted was living in a village and according to the earning of petitioner, maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month was correctly fixed and revisional Court fell into an error of law in enhancing same, beyond the capacity of petitioner and contrary to evidence on record
Impugned order was declared to be void and of no legal consequence and order of fixing maintenance allowance at Rs.800 per month would hold the field.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.
Instant constitutional petition prayed that order, dated 17-3-2005 passed by respondent No.1 may be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence whereby maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month awarded by respondent No.3 was enhanced to Rs.2,500 per month on revision petition of Mst. Razia Bibi respondent No.4.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that respondent No.4 was married with the petitioner on 1-6-1994 according to Muslim rites through a registered Nikahnama. This wedlock gave birth to a child who was named as "Husnain" and at the present is of the age of 4/5 years in the custody of respondent No.4. Relations between the spouses did not remain cordial and after separation, ultimately ended ' in divorce. Respondent No.4 during the period of separation filed an application for her maintenance before Nazim Union Council No.146, Kahna Nau, District Lahore on 31-3-2001 for her past as well as, future maintenance allowance. Chairman, Union Council (respondent No.3) after hearing the parties vide his order, dated 9-5-2002 awarded respondent No.4 maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month w.e.f. January, 1998 to 31-12-2001 which amounted to Rs.1,44,400.
3. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision by respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 who vide order, dated 28-8-2003 remanded the case to respondent No.2 Nazim Union Council No.145. Respondent No.2 in post-remand proceedings reduced the maintenance allowance to Rs.800 per month payable till Iddat period of respondent No.4 vide his order, dated 31-12-2003.
4. Respondent No.4 then filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 for enhancement of maintenance allowance by challenging order, dated 31-12-2003. Respondent No.1 on 13-3-2005 accepted the revision petition of respondent No.4 and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.800 to Rs.2,500 per month. The petitioner thereafter filed instant constitutional petition with the relief noted above. Respondent No.4 in response to notice by this Court has appeared and is represented through her counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The petitioner paid the past maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.800 per month, partly i.e. Rs.16,000 on 5-7-2005 and thereafter paid another amount of Rs.2,400 at the time of hearing of this petition to the learned counsel for respondent No.4. Record revealed that the increase of maintenance allowance made by respondent No.1 was not at all justified. from the evidence of the parties. Besides the evidence recorded by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 produced a certificate issued by Admin Manager of Mehraan Ramzan Textile Mills Limited, according to which petitioner is being paid monthly salary of Rs.2,900 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2002. It is very harsh to burden the petitioner with the maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 per month out of his salary of Rs.2,900 per month, even ignoring his other responsibilities/liabilities. Claim of respondent No.4 that maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month is meagre, as she has to maintain his minor child Husnain as well, was not justified. In these proceedings maintenance allowance was only awarded to respondent No.4 who is living in a village and according to earnings of the petitioners, maintenance allowance of Rs.800 per month was correctly fixed by respondent No.2 and the revisional Court fell into an error of law in enhancing the same, beyond the capacity of the petitioner and contrary to evidence on the record.
6. For the reasons noted above, the impugned order dated 31-12-2003 passed by respondent No.1 is declared to be void and of no legal consequence, in result of which order of respondent No.2 fixing maintenance allowance of respondent No.4 at Rs.800 per month withhold field. Respondent No.4 may, if so advised, seek maintenance of her minor child "Husnain" through a separate suit, as per law. With these observations, the instant petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-375/L Petition allowed.