Maintenance for minors

2021 YLR 1363 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 5, Sched.Maintenance for minorPayment, proof of

Held, that money-order receipts were sufficient documentary evidence to prove that payment had been made to the recipient by the sender/father.

2021 YLR 1363 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 5, Sched.Maintenance for minorQuantum ofFinancial status of fatherTenure (starting date) of fixation of maintenance allowanceScope

Appellate Court modified the starting date of fixation of maintenance allowance for minor from date of institution of suit to his date of birth

Petitioner/father (a school teacher by profession) invoked constitutional jurisdiction to assail order passed by the Appellate Court and also sought reduction in quantum of maintenance allowance for minor

Held, that mother had filed suit for maintenance allowance for minor within three years of minor's birth, therefore, the Appellate Court had rightly granted his maintenance allowance from his date of birth

Petitioner had produced his salary certificate in his evidence which showed that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 7000/- as a school teacher

Mother of minor had not brought any documentary evidence on record, which could prove that father was earning more than what he disclosed

Father though was bound to maintain his child but in a manner befitting his status and financial condition

Record revealed that the petitioner had never avoided to pay maintenance allowance for the minor

Keeping in view of meager salary amount of the father, High Court reduced the maintenance allowance for minor from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 3000/ for the first three years of age of the minor and directed that the amount previously sent by father for the minor through money-orders, (receipts thereof available on record) whether acknowledged or not, be adjusted in past maintenance of minor

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was modified accordingly

Constitutional petition was disposed of

2020 YLR 1266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5Maintenance for minorsConcurrent findings for facts by two courts belowExecution of decree"Sham transaction"Scope

Petitioner was father of judgment debtor and objected execution of decree passed by Family Court on the plea of owner of land in question

Both the Courts below dismissed the objection considering transfer of land in favour of petitioner as sham

Validity

Mutation in favour of petitioner was got attested by judgment debtor four months after passing of decree against his son

Such transfer of land fell within the definition of "sham transaction" which was rightly cancelled by Executing Court

Readiness of petitioner for partial payment of outstanding maintenance for minors in addition to paying future maintenance, he was at liberty to satisfy the decree through his son / judgment debtor and there was nothing impeding his way but such fact could not be used to set aside execution of decree

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below could not be upset in Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless those were proved to be perverse or result of arbitrariness

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 MLD 1005 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 14 & 17-AMaintenance for minorsNon-compliance of order of Family Court to pay interim maintenance

Father contended that dismissal of appeal was not based on merit rather his appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of order of Family Court to pay interim maintenance

Mother of minors contended that payment of interim maintenance was outstanding since long

Validity

Appellate Court directed the father to pay interim maintenance as well as outstanding maintenance, thereafter the appeal was to be fixed but he failed to comply with the order

Question to be determined by High Court was "whether appellate court was justified in passing a conditional order, could appellate court dismiss the appeal without deciding the same on merits"

Record revealed that order of appellate court regarding payment of interim maintenance was not a conditional order and nowhere was it mentioned in the said order that its non-compliance would construe dismissal of appeal

Order of appellate court was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh

Case being an old one and involved maintenance of minors, Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously

Father was directed to pay maintenance allowance in compliance of order of Family Court

Order accordingly.