Interim maintenance

2026 CLC 12 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17-A [as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act (XI of 2015)]Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 9Suit for maintenanceInterim maintenanceRight to life

Provision of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 [as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015] is a specific provision dealing with suit for maintenance as a special category of family claims

Provision of S.17-A is introduced through Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 on 18-03-2015, which has placed maintenance of wife and children at a higher pedestal than other family claims

Maintenance allowance serves as a means of subsistence and survival for wife and children, intrinsically connected to their right to life guaranteed under Arts. 4 & 9 of the Constitution

Discretionary powers on Family Court have also been conferred under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 [as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015] to prescribe annual increase in maintenance to cater for future needs and requirements of wife and children as well as depreciation in value of currency in terms of inflation

No caveat is attached to the power of Family Court to prescribe such annual increase in maintenance on compound or non-compound basis

Family Court is free to pass a reasonable decree in such behalf depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

2024 SCMR 1292 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17AInterim maintenanceFather failing to comply with order for payment of maintenance to the minorsContumacious conductCosts, imposition of

Family Court, in accordance with Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, had the lawful authority to strike off the defence of the petitioner (father) and decree the suit for maintenance on the basis of averments in the plaint and other supporting documents on record of the case, once the petitioner failed to pay the interim maintenance allowance by fourteenth day of each month during the pendency of proceedings

Petitioner was also put to notice by the Family Court to clear the arrears of interim maintenance allowance otherwise the provisions of Section 17-A of the Act would be invoked, which the petitioner failed to comply with

Moreover, the determination of the amount of maintenance by the Family Court was neither arbitrary nor capricious

Hence, the High Court had rightly declined to interfere with the findings of the Family Court with regard to the quantum of maintenance allowance

In view of the callous disregard of the petitioner for the court order to pay interim maintenance and his attempts to delay the payment of decreed maintenance allowance for his minor children, the Supreme Court imposed costs on the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to deter such conduct in the future with the direction that the costs shall be recovered by the executing court as part of the decree for maintenance

Petition was accordingly dismissed.

2022 CLC 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.17AInterim maintenanceAutistic minorPetitioner's 5½ years old daughter was suffering from the Autism Spectrum DisorderInterim maintenance allowance had been raised from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per monthPetitioner had served at eminent positions as neurosurgeon in Pakistan and abroadPetitioner admitted that his wife's father was killed and that she had to provide for her mother as well

Held, that reason for excessive interim maintenance was manifestly reflected in the impugned order that the child whose maintenance was in issue was an autistic child whose needs/requirements were indeed over and above and in excess of what were generally associated with typical 5 years old children

In the present days of massive inflation, impugned order, especially in the case of an autistic child, could not be said to be unreasonable or even harsh

Amount fixed had a rational nexus with the requirements/needs of a differently abled child and, therefore, was quite proportionate

Impugned order was passed in the presence of the petitioner, who was heard by Family Judge

Autistic individuals had lifelong needs, more so at the tender age of 5

Facilities that would be luxury to typical kids were basically necessities for an autistic child, for example, swimming, skating, therapy etc. are basic skills to prevent drowning and develop coordination respectively

Specialist coaches were indeed expensive

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 CLC 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.17AInterim maintenancePower to enhance/decrease amountFamily Court, jurisdiction ofScope

Purpose behind the powers under provisions of S.17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, to grant interim maintenance to the concerned parties was to ensure that during pendency of proceedings for grant of maintenance, affected minors were not faced with financial constraints

Family Court did not have un-fettered/un-bridled powers to fix interim maintenance at its discretion

Court may broadly look into the social status of the parties; earning of the defendant; his capacity to pay; requirements of the minor and on this touchstone fix interim maintenance

No right of appeal etc. had been provided against such a determination, because the order was tentative and interim in nature

Court had power to enhance or decrease the quantum of maintenance eventually after appraising/deciphering/examining the evidence produced during trial

Findings qua interim maintenance normally could not be interfered with, if the same were fixed upon the said parameters.

2021 MLD 337 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 17-AInterim maintenanceQuantumFamily Court to adopt a pragmatic approach and fix interim maintenance

Principles enumerated.

2017 PLD 689 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5, 17, 17-A & 21-ACivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVIII, R.5Suit for recovery of maintenanceInterim maintenanceApplicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908Scope

Law Officer had argued that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not applicable as per S.17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 but if on any matter, the provisions of the Act were silent provisions of C.P.C. were applicable

Validity

Principles of S.21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 were similar to the principles of O.XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C., hence, the objective of O.XXXVIII, R.5, C.P.C. was only preventive and not punitive.

2017 PLD 689 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5, 17-A & 21-ASuit for recovery of maintenanceInterim maintenanceRestraining order at the time of institution of suit for defendant to alienate his property

Question was as to whether provision of S.21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 could be invoked without any order of interim decree under S.17-A of the Act

Petitioner/defendant contended that restraining order not to alienate his property was illegal as the same was passed by Family Court at the outset of proceedings and respondent/plaintiff moved application for interim maintenance after few months

Respondent contended that restraining order was necessary to secure legal rights in the light of apprehension that petitioner might sell his property

Validity

Family Court was not justified in passing the order restraining the petitioner from alienating his property which was not subject matter of the suit because no hard circumstances existed which had made the Family Court to pass an order which otherwise amounted to attachment before judgment

Record showed that plaintiff on the first date of hearing filed application under S.21-A of the Act, on the ground that the defendant was living abroad and would sell the property, therefore, he be restrained from alienating his property

Family Court on the first date had passed status quo order that the defendant was restrained to alienate or sell the property so that expected decree be executed effectively

Such was a premature act of the plaintiff to file the application on the first day because it was against the mandate of procedure provide in the Act as the interim or final decree, had not been passed

Interim maintenance was allowable under S.17-A of the Act, and after recording of evidence and hearing the parties final decree was to be passed and when maintenance was not being paid in pending suit, then S.21-A of the Act could be invoked, if all the ingredients of S.21-A were fulfilled

Intention of the Legislature was very clear with regard to the attachment before judgment that to preserve and protect the property, which was in dispute and for the satisfaction of the decree, then interim order was to be passed; that the basic criteria given for passing restraining order of the property in dispute was for the satisfaction of the decree if considered necessary

Family Court merely on presumptions and apprehensions had assumed without any cogent and convincing evidence on record that after passing of maintenance order, the defendant would abscond out of country and decree would not be satisfied

Family Court had not followed the prescribed procedure provided in law

Power given in S.21-A of the Act was presumptive and not punitive

Jurisdiciton of the court was of an extraordinary in nature and should be exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law

Present suit related to maintenance and Family Court had misconstrued the provision of S.21-A of the Act, which could only be exercised in a suit where subject matter was that of property, if the decree (interim or final) was not satisfied by the defendant, in other words, the party, filing the suit, should have a semblance of right or title over the property

For exercising the powers under S.21-A of the Act, the criteria for the court was to see that party filing the suit had semblance of right or title over the property; compelling cause of action was to be stated by the court; previous record of the defendant was to be seen that he had entered into any agreement to sell or he was trying to further alienate his property through any other mode, like gift or exchange and whether interim maintenance was not being paid by him

Defendant, in the present case, had never refused to maintain his family and was steadily paying maintenance every month, thus complying with the interim decree which was being satisfied

Present suit was only for maintenance and relief sought was being adhered to on the form of payment of interim maintenance, so issuance of restraining order was undesirable

By merely filing a suit/application, or raising any plaint against the defendant did not constitute a right to restrain the defendant from alienating his property

Facts from which the intention of the defendant might be inferred for selling/disposing of the property or portion of the property were to be proved through satisfactory evidence that i.e. an attempt to sell property, benami transfer, rapid sale of the property, past conduct

Transaction of disposing of property must be subsequent to the suit

Mere fact that plaintiffs had claimed for maintenance allowance against the defendant and had an apprehension that the defendant would abscond because he was living abroad for earning his livelihood, was not enough to pass the impugned order

Section 21-A of Act was preventive and not punitive

Family Court had passed impugned order merely on apprehension without application of judicial mind

Impugned order was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2012 PLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityInterim maintenance

Interim maintenance fixed by Family Court was assailed by husband on the plea of its being exorbitant and beyond his means

Validity

Order passed by Family Court could neither be termed as void ab initio nor without jurisdiction and the order had also not attained status of final order

Order for interim maintenance was passed by Family Court, who had jurisdiction to pass such order under S.17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Husband did not challenge jurisdiction of Family Court in his written statement, he was not condemned unheard and was provided opportunity of hearing before passing the interim order

Quantum of interim maintenance allowance was prima facie rightly fixed by Family Court, while keeping in view the status of parties and expenses of minors

Husband was unable to point out any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order of interim maintenance, therefore, petition which had been filed against interim order passed by court of competent jurisdiction, after providing an opportunity of hearing to parties was not maintainable in the eyes of law

High Court declined to interfere in interim maintenance fixed by Family Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 PLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17-AInterim maintenanceObject, purpose and scope

Purpose behind provisions for interim maintenance is to ensure that during pendency of such proceedings with Family Court, financial constraints faced by minors are ameliorated.

2012 PLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.17-AInterim maintenancePowers of court

Family Court has uninhibited powers to enhance or decrease quantum of maintenance after appraising, deciphering and examining evidence produced during trial

Findings regarding interim maintenance normally cannot be interfered with, if the same were fixed upon the parameters in such regard.

2012 PLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.17-AInterim maintenanceQuantumDetermining factors

Family Court should broadly look into the social status of parties; earning of husband; his capacity to pay; requirements of minor; and on this touchstone fix interim maintenance.