2010 PLP 1118 (YLR)
Mst. KOUSAR BIBI and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1118 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J |
| Parties | Mst. KOUSAR BIBI and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1118 (YLR)?
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 2010 PLP 1118 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1118 (YLR) (Mst. KOUSAR BIBI and 5 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sikandar Ali Janbaz for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Ramzan for Respondent No.1.
- S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---The petitioners seek to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the maintenance allowance fixed for petitioners Nos.2 to 6 at the rate of Rs.500 per month each with 10% annual A increase was allowed and modified, whereas the learned trial Court fixed the same at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month each vide judgment and decree, dated 1-7-2008.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched. & S.14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Trial Court fixed maintenance allowance of the plaintiffs (minors) at the rate of Rs.1000 per month each, but Appellate Court modified judgment and decree of the Trial Court and fixed amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 per month each with 10% annual increase
Appellate Court without any evidence observed that none of the plaintiffs were getting education from any institution
Defendant claimed that he was working as daily wager at the hotel of his father, which was not believable as in fact the defendant was owner of the hotel and he earned handsome money
Father of the minors/ plaintiffs was statutorily bound to provide maintenance to his minor children to be brought up in a better way
Appellate Court, in wrong appreciation of evidence without application of judicious mind passed the decree reducing the maintenance allowance
Keeping in view the patent illegality and misreading of evidence to the extent of reduction of maintenance 'allowance without any reason, impugned decree was set aside, but maintained to the extent of annual 10% increase
Judgment and decree of the Family Court was maintained and minors were also held to be entitled for the annual increase of 10% per year as awarded by the Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
The petitioners seek to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the maintenance allowance fixed for petitioners Nos.2 to 6 at the rate of Rs.500 per month each with 10% annual A increase was allowed and modified, whereas the learned trial Court fixed the same at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month each vide judgment and decree, dated 1-7-2008.
2. Heard. The minors petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are school going whereas the learned Appellate Court without any evidence observed as none of these are getting education from any institution. Respondent No.1 claims that he is working as daily wager at the hotel of his father, which is not believable because he claims the hotel of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in fact the respondent is an owner of the hotel and earns handsome money. The learned counsel for the respondent has adopted the same version that he is not having source of income. In the circumstances, the income of respondent No.1 Muhammad Shahbaz cannot be determined with exactitude and safely can be said he is earning handsome money. It is the statutory duty of the respondent/father to provide maintenance to his minor children to be brought up in a better way. The prices of the daily use articles are rocketing to sky and Appellate Court without recording any reason and by applying rule of thumb reduce the maintenance allowance. However, to the extent of enhancement at the rate of 10% annual increase was correct and the impugned judgment and decree is maintainable. The learned Appellate Court in wrong appreciation of evidence without application of judicious mind passed the decree and reduced the maintenance allowance. Keeping in view the patent illegality and misreading of evidence to the extent of reduction of maintenance allowance without any reason, the impugned decree is set aside but maintained to the extent of annual increase. The judgment and decree of learned Judge Family Court dated 1-7-2008 is maintained and minor petitioners are also entitled for the annual increase @ of 10% per year as awarded by the Appellate Court, therefore, in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction as discussed above, the writ petition is accepted. H.B.T./K-13/L Petition accepted.