Home Maxims & Terms Recovery of maintenance meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Recovery of maintenance

Recovery of maintenance legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2013 MLD 537 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S.5 & Sched.Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionDivorce on the basis of khulaRecovery of maintenanceFamily Court dissolved marriage on the basis of Khula and refused to pay maintenance allowance to wife

Wife contended that when factum of cruelty was proved, marriage should not have been dissolved on the basis of Khula and she was entitled to recovery of maintenance also

Validity

Attitude of wife had made her desert her husband's house and preferred to stay with her parents, and the same could not be termed as ouster of wife on the part of husband from his house but rather a desertion on the part of wife to leave her husband's house out of her own sweet and free will

Wife was disobedient, therefore, she did not have right to claim maintenance from her husband and the same was rightly disallowed to her by Family Court

Element of cruelty and torture at the hands of husband was disproved, therefore, marriage was rightly dissolved on the basis of Khula

High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, declined to make factual determination or interfere in judgment passed by competent court vested with statutory powers unless there was a jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity such as arbitrariness etc. in the order assailed before High Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Recovery of maintenance", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939875

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Recovery of maintenance"

YLR 2022
2021-August-11

2022 Y L R 444

MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN and another — Appellants Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
YLR 2010
Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2009 and C.M. No. 1858 of 2010, decided on 28th April, 2010.

2010 Y L R 2711

AMANAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAJMA BIBI and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2012
Civil Appeals Nos.55 and 59 of 2011, decided on 18th February, 2012.

2012 Y L R 1559

MUHAMMAD YASEEN and another — Appellants Versus Mst. KALI BIBI and others — Respondents

Court: Shariat Court (AJ&K)
YLR 2010
Writ Petition No.224 of 2009, decided on 27th April, 2009.

2010 Y L R 349

TARIQ MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus Mst. FARAH SHAHEEN — Respondent

Court: Lahore
YLR 2010
Writ Petition No. 10032 of 2010, decided on 14th May, 2010.

2010 Y L R 2691

MUHAMMAD MUNIR — Petitioner Versus KANEEZ FATIMA and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 2003
Writ Petition No. 874 of 2003, decided on 23rd January, 2003.

P L D 2003 Lahore 264

MUHAMMAD ASLAM ‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
YLR 2007
Writ Petition No.2407 of 2006/BWP, decided on 30th November, 2006.

2007 Y L R 1366

MUHAMMAD KHALID JAVEED — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN and 4 others-Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 2006
Writ Petition No.3998 of 2005/BWP, decided on 21st December, 2005.

2006 C L C 1185

Mst. KAUSAR JABEEN — Petitioner- Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2006
Writ Petition No.4967 of 2003, decided on 5th October, 2005.

2006 Y L R 754

BASHIR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MUSSARAT SHAHEEN and 4 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1997
Writ Petition No.9458 of 1994, decided on 12th August, 1997.

P L D 1997 Lahore 680

MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OKARA and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.82‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa"‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Recovery of maintenance as arrears of land revenue in execution of decree‑‑‑Applicability of maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" (No man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause)‑‑ Extent‑‑‑For recovery of maintenance as arrears of land revenue, any defaulter who had once served out maximum period of civil imprisonment was not liable to be again incarcerated under provision of S.82, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967‑‑‑Maxim "Nerno debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" was fully attracted to such case‑‑‑Defaulter, however, could not be absolved of his liability to pay maintenance‑‑‑Amount of maintenance was recoverable by all other lawful methods‑‑‑Warrants for arrest and detention of petitioner issued by respondent (official) were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑‑Maxim.