Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance

Trial Court decreed maintenance allowance to plaintiff (wife) for 17 years, which decree was maintained by the Appellate Court

Question was whether the past maintenance allowance was decreed in accordance with law?

Held, that grant of past maintenance allowance, in the present case, was not in accordance with law as Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable to a suit for maintenance which stipulated 6 years

Trial Court could have decreed past maintenance for the period of six years but had wrongly awarded the maintenance beyond the period of 6 years which was not in accordance with law

High Court modified the impugned judgments and decrees to the extent of past maintenance holding that respondent (plaintiff/wife) was entitled for 6 years' past maintenance before filing of the suit

Constitu-tional petition, filed by defendant/husband, was partly allowed.

Held, that though the proposition, whether petitioner No.1 (defendant/ husband/father) was of unsound mind, had been decided by the Trial Court in negative by holding that said question / proposition could be confirmed by medical evidence, but at the same time petitioner No.2 (grand-father/defendant) was directed to pay the decretal amount to respondents/plaintiffs (wife and daughter), meaning thereby the Trial Court in the light of case Jamila Begum v. Awam-un-Nass" PLD 1978 Lah. 1376 had impliedly held that the petitioner No. 1 was of unsound mind; even otherwise in view of the dictum laid down in the case Sultan Ahmad v. Judge Family Court" PLD 2012 Lah. 148, the petitioner No. 2 (grand-father) was rightly directed to pay the decretal amount, being grandfather of minors

No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition, filed by the defendants (father and grand-father), was disposed of.

Father is obligated to maintain his children and a reasonable standard must be assumed for determining quantum of their maintenance allowance

Court while considering the quantum of maintenance will take into consideration the fundamentals of the minors education, status, general expenses

Court must also take into consideration reasonable probability of obtaining education and the ability to take care of the minors in a stable, safe and healthy environment

Without due consideration of all said factors, the Court cannot conclude positively the quantum of maintenance

There is no hard and fast formula for determining quantum of maintenance and the main consideration for the Court is the ability of the father to maintain the minors

Thus, merely stating that he is short of resources will not discharge him of his obligation

Basic objective for determining maintenance is to ensure that in all probability the minors are maintained by the father in a dignified manner with reasonable comfort and that the mother of the child is not left to bear the burden of taking care of the minors

Quantum of maintenance requires due consideration of all factors on the basis of which the court can determine the actual need of the minor

In said regard, it is important for the court to keep in consideration the expenses incurred or likely to be incurred on the minors

For the purpose of maintenance it is the obligation of the father to fulfill needs of his kids.

Mere poverty was no ground for interference in the order passed by the Family Court passing decree far maintenance allowance of the minor to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which amount was neither exorbitant nor unreasonable considering the inflation and cost of living

No illegality or infirmity had been found in the impugned orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Family Court while fixing interim maintenance allowance, ordered the petitioner/ defendant to pay, on next date of hearing, the arrears of interim maintenance allowance counting from the date of institution of the suit

Petitioner/defendant did not comply with the said directions

Later, the Family Court struck off his right of defence on the application of respondents/plaintiffs

Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that only one opportunity was granted to him to clear the arrears of the maintenance allowance while fixing the interim maintenance allowance

Validity

It was not vested right of the petitioner to claim multiple opportunities for compliance of the order/directions and he was obliged to adhere to the directions of the Trial court regarding payment of the maintenance allowance in order to clear the arrears

Even otherwise, the record revealed that after the said directions, the case was fixed on multiple dates spanning almost a year and then impugned order and decree was passed by the Family Court, thus the contention of the petitioner was misconceived

Act of non-compliance of order of the Trial Court disentitled the petitioner from any discretionary relief from the High Court

No illegality or infirmity had been found in the impugned orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record of the appeal having been preferred by the petitioner/ defendant revealed that he challenged the order and decree passed by the Family Court without arraying the minor as respondent therein

Said act of the petitioner meant that he had admitted the findings of the Family Court to the extent of relief given to the minor, so he could not take a somersault, before the High Court, on the ground that he had challenged the decree as a whole

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/husband assailed award of maintenance allowance to the respondent/wife on the ground that she herself had left his house of her own volition

Validity

Respondent levelled allegations of bad and disrespectful behaviour on part of the petitioner towards her and she deposed in her evidence that on account of torture inflicted by the petitioner upon asking for maintenance, she had left the house of the petitioner and to that extent her testimony was not discredited in cross-examination by the petitioner

Respondent had left the house of the petitioner under compelling circumstances to reside with her parents and the petitioner could not prove any attempt on his part to reconcile with her

Defence witnesses had admitted the date of desertion as well as the fact that the petitioner had not paid any amount of maintenance from the said date till dissolution of the marriage

Decree for maintenance was rightly passed in favour of the respondent

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court observed that the same had already been considered by legislature to be too meager even to allow an appeal under S. 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore, entertaining a writ petition would tantamount to defeating the legislative intent and purpose of restricting the challenge to such decree Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Marriage between the spouses did subsist and husband due to family constraints was unable to take his wife and minor to his home

Wife and minor were entitled for interim maintenance under the law till the disposal of main suit

Scope and theme of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, was to safeguard the welfare of wife and bound down the husband to perform his marital as well as parental obligations

If husband failed to pay interim maintenance then his defence should be struck off

Interim maintenance determined by the Family Court for the minor was insufficient

Wife was still in the wedlock of husband who was bound to maintain her

Husband had not provided any maintenance for his wife and minor

Interim maintenance of minor was enhanced whereas interim maintenance for wife was determined accordingly

Husband was directed to pay interim maintenance till the disposal of main suit

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of Wife (petitioner) was that the Husband (respondent) himself left the house, meant for the spouses to reside, whereas the respondent claimed that he was expelled from the house by the petitioner

Validity

Admission on the part of respondent reflected that he had not been maintaining the petitioner since then

No contact between the parties in any way was brought on record

Respondent had filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights after a lapse of four years

Petitioner was held entitled to the recovery of past maintenance allowance from the date of desertion till the date of filing of suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent

Constitutional petition was partially allowed.

No upper or lower limit of maintenance is fixed, rather, the Islam ties the issue with the means of men, i.e. if the person is well off he must maintain his wife according to his standard, at the same time, if the means of the husband are limited he is still not absolved of his responsibility of maintaining his wife.

Muslim wife who wilfully refuses to perform the matrimonial obligation towards her husband is not entitled for any kind of maintenance allowance except the maintenance allowance for the period of iddat.

Husband is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife whatsoever are the circumstances.

Petitioner (mother of minor) assailed order passed by Judge Family Court whereby respondent (father of minor) was allowed to meet the minor once in a month for half an hour

Contention of petitioner was that Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to fix meeting schedule as the lis pending was with regard to recovery of maintenance allowance and not a guardian petition; that the respondent had already filed a guardian petition where he could ask for similar relief and that the respondent was chronic patient of skin disease

Validity

Judge Family Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters contained in Part I of the Schedule attached to the Family Courts Act, 1964, which included "custody of children" against serial No. 5 with addition of "visitation rights of parents to meet them"

Respondent could not be restrained to have meeting with his daughter

Father, like mother, had equal right to see his children and the right so bestowed could not be taken away

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Family Court may grant appropriate maintenance allowance according to the needs of the claimant and demands of justice in each case and there is no limit or fixed amount of maintenance

Financial position of the defendant is also to be considered.

Wife, through her attorney, had stated in explicit terms that she was ousted by the husband and such statement was not cross-examined

Husband had contracted second marriage and when the wife was questioned she had showed her willingness to live with the husband but the husband had straightaway refused to live with her

Husband was legally bound to maintain his wife in order to meet daily needs like food, clothes, medicines, etc, which was his duty to bear from the date when she was ousted till she was in his nikah

Constitutional petition, being without merit, was dismissed.

Family Court fixed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of institution of suit till change of custody of minor

Appellate Court dismissed appeal for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that no appeal had been provided against judgment and decree passed for maintenance less than Rs. 5000/- per month

Validity

Right of appeal of plaintiff for enhancement of maintenance had not been extinguished under S. 14 of Family Courts Act, 1964

Appeal of plaintiffs before Appellate Court was competent, in circumstances

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was without lawful authority and jurisdiction which was set aside

Appeal filed by the plaintiffs would be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court which was to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petition for framing of issue with regard to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit was moved but same was dismissed

Validity

Decision rendered by the Family Court was appealable provided the same was not an interim order or a decision of interlocutory nature

Even order passed during pendency of a suit could not be treated as an interim or interlocutory order if it had finally determined an issue

Appeal under S.14 of Family Courts Act, 1964 was not barred against every interlocutory order and remedy of appeal, unless specifically barred would be available against a decision relating to a right or a remedy provided under the law subject to condition that finality was attached to such an order or decision and nothing remained to be further decided between the parties on the issue

Order with regard to framing of an issue would be deemed to have attained finality and same could not be treated as an interlocutory order

Appeal against the impugned order was maintainable but was not availed

Petitioner having not availed alternate remedy, constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff through his mother filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance before the Family Court within the local limits of which his mother was residing

Family Court returned the plaint for presentation before the Court within the local limits of which father of minor was residing

Validity

Minor son had filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance through his mother before the Family Court where not only cause of action had arisen in his favour but both the minor and his mother were also residing within the territorial jurisdiction of said Court

Impugned order passed by the Family Court was illegal having no legal effect and same was set aside

Plaintiff was directed to re-present the plaint before Family Court within territorial jurisdiction of which his mother was residing

Family Court was directed to entertain and decide the suit on merits

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Any such order in which financial capacity of father viz-a-viz his own expenses had not been considered properly then interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court would be unjust, perverse, harsh, excessive and fanciful

No appeal had been provided against the order of interim maintenance and in such a manner, father had been deprived of constitutional guarantee of equal protection of law

Order of higher maintenance in favour of minor would create financial problems for a father

When he would not be able to comply with the terms of the interlocutory order, his right to contest the suit on merit would close and would be knocked out by the court

Interlocutory orders of Family Court could not be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction

Father should not be punished by way of interim maintenance allowance

Interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court, in the present case, was exorbitant but High Court in constitutional jurisdiction would not determine the factual aspect of adequacy or inadequacy of said maintenance

Family Court was directed to decide the suit within the period of one month so that father could only be burdened with interim maintenance for one month which would be subsequently merged into final judgment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Family Court allowed maintenance allowance for the minor at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month but refused the same to the wife

Validity

Husband was bound to pay maintenance allowance to the wife till she was faithful and lived with him

When wife had succeeded to prove that she was foced to abandon the house of her husband, she was entitled for maintenance

Husband was bound to pay maintenance to the wife till she lived in his house and for the period of Iddat after dissolution of marriage

Family Court had committed error while dismissing the suit of wife for recovery of maintenance allowance

Minor daughter was getting education; mother had proved that she could not afford expenses of school and other daily items from the fixed amount of maintenance

Court had power to increase or decrease the maintenance allowance according to the financial position of father and keeping in view the rate of inflation in the country and increase of demands of the minor with the passage of time

Family Court had fixed maintenance allowance without an annual increment

High Court enhanced maintenance allowance for the minor from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month with 10% annual increment from the date of judgment and also granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month till she lived with her husband and for the period of Iddat after divorce

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court were modified accordingly

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

District Judge sent the decree to the Family Judge for its execution who passed order that the decree passed by the foreign Court was not executable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

High Court directed the Family Court to continue proceedings for execution of a decree passed by the Family Court of Pakistan on merit but restrained to execute an ex-parte decree of foreign Court

Validity

Decree passed by the Court of Pakistan could only be executed in the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir while complying with the statutory provisions of S.44-A, C.P.C.

Supreme Court observed that governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir should make reciprocal arrangements for execution of decrees by notification to be published in the official gazette

Decrees passed by the Courts of Pakistan could be executed through reciprocal arrangements between the governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Executing Court had power to attend the objection raised by the judgment-debtor and determine the same

High Court had misconceived the statutory provisions of law

Order passed by the High Court was not sustainable in circumstances

Impugned judgments passed by the High Court were recalled

Appeal was allowed in circumstances. [Genuine Rights Commission v. Federal Government and others PLD 2006 HC(AJ&K) 1 Overruled].

Second wife of judgment-debtor (husband) filed suit for declaration wherein injunctive order was passed restraining him from alienation of suit property

Executing Court consigned execution petition till decision of civil suit

Validity

No injunctive order qua the execution proceedings nor execution process could be suspended through declaratory suit

Injunctive order itself was limited to the extent of alienation by the judgment-debtor

Judgment-debtor could not escape from his liability for satisfaction of his debts

Execution proceedings had to be independently dealt with and same could not be held in abeyance nor could be ordered to be consigned to record room

Any alienation of property with intent to defeat the claim or to defraud the creditors was nullity in law and could not be used detrimental to the interest of the claimant in a decree passed against its executant

Judgment-debtor could not be allowed to carve out pleas in conspiracy with his second wife for the purpose of avoiding his paternal obligation of making payment of maintenance to the minors

Judgment-debtor was bound to maintain his minor children instead of fetching tactics and devices to avoid his liability

Family Court was empowered to execute the decree for the payment of maintenance

Family Court could recover the arrears through sale of the immovable property of the defaulter

Executing Court was competent to proceed with the execution proceedings when there was no injunctive order qua the proceedings of execution nor the execution of decree was under suspension from any competent Court

Impugned order passed by the Executing Court suffered from illegality and error of jurisdiction which could not be countenanced

Impugned orders were set aside and objection petitionwas dismissed

Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Husband/father was bound to prove his financial status/earning capacity and the burden of proving the same could not be shifted on the stranded wife.

Suit filed by wife was decreed by Family Court with the condition that she would be entitled to recover maintenance allowance in case of 'Abadi'

Appellate Court modified the decree and held that wife was entitled to recover maintenance allowance without any condition

Validity

Husband's claim that wife was disobedient and consequently her entitlement to recover maintenance allowance was required to be proved through some confidence inspiring evidence

Husband did not make any attempt to rehabilitate the wife in his house by filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights

Wife had claimed that she was not being paid maintenance for quite some time, therefore, it could not be concluded that she was a disobedient wife and was not entitled to maintenance allowance

Husband failed to point out any misreading, non-reading or illegality in the judgment of Appellate Court

Constitutional petition, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed by Trial Court and respondents were held entitled to recover maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per month each

Contention of petitioner was that Trial Court had decreed the suit without keeping in view his financial status

Validity

Petitioner himself had admitted in an earlier constitutional petition that he could pay Rs. 5000 per month to each of the minors as maintenance allowance till disposal of suit for maintenance

Petitioner was now estopped to take plea of financial status contrary to his earlier statement

High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction did not ordinarily reappraise the evidence and substitute findings of facts recorded by Trial Court nor did it give its opinion regarding quality or adequacy of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible

Assessment and appraisal of evidence was the function of Family Court which was vested with exclusive jurisdiction and findings of fact determined by a court of fact could not be set aside by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Petitioner/father contended that both the courts below had ignored his salary slip tendered in the evidence and decreed maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- each for two minors

Validity

Section 17-A(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 stipulated that in order to fix maintenance allowance of the minors, Family Court could summon the relevant documentary evidence from any organization , body or authority to determine the estate and resources of the defendant

Record revealed that both the Courts below had not discussed any document on the basis of which they determined the financial status of petitioner for fixation of the quantum of maintenance for minors

Section 17-A(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, provided that paramount duty of the Family Court was to keep in mind the financial status of the father before fixing quantum of maintenance

Financial status and resources of father (petitioner) and his capacity to pay could only be ascertained through summoning of documentary evidence from the concerned organization, body or authority where he was employed

Both the Courts below had failed to do so

Record showed that the petitioner had tendered in his documentary evidence the salary slip in the Court, but the same was not reflected in the impugned judgments

Without discussing said material piece of evidence, Family Court had decided the issue of quantum of maintenance which was contrary to the law

No judgment could be passed without discussing the evidence

Both the Courts below had not adverted to the said salary slip of the petitioner which showed his net pay as Rs. 18,252/- while the petitioner also had to support his ailing mother and other family members as well as his handicapped daughter who was living with him

Verbal assertion of the wife that the monthly income of the husband was Rs. 35,000/- had not been substantiated by any documentary evidence

Documentary evidence would exclude the oral evidence

High Court modified the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below, by reducing monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3,000/- for each minor

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner(defendant) contended that his application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree should have been accepted

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner maintained in his application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree that he had paid Rs.70,000/-, which fact denoted that the petitioner had accepted the validity of the judgment and decree being satisfied

Petitioner had submitted application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree and record manifested that he had actively participated in the proceedings in question

Petitioner in his constitutional petition had challenged the order passed by Executing Court which was an interlocutory/interim order

When the Legislature had specifically prohibited the filing of appeal or revision against an interim order and if the constitutional petition was allowed to be filed against said order, that would tantamount to defeating the intent of the legislature

Petitioner had adequate remedy available to him by challenging impugned order in appeal which, he might file against the ultimate order/judgment if the same would be against him

No illegality or irregularity having been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Family/Executing Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Family Court passed the decree on the basis of statements got recorded by both the parties (Husband and wife) in the light of exhibited compromise deed

Presumption of truth attached to the Court proceedings

Scope

Petitioner/judgment debtor contended that Family Court had wrongly dismissed his application to set aside the decree which was based on fraud and misrepresentation as neither he appeared before the Court nor got his statement recorded

Validity

Record revealed that compromise deed was placed before the Court wherein the statements of both the parties were recorded and the matter was decided in terms of said compromise

Petitioner put his signature and thumb impression over the margin of the order sheet and he was identified by his counsel

Petitioner, after five months of passing of the said order, challenged the order on the basis of compromise entered on his behalf

Court below, in order to verify the thumb impression of the petitioner on the compromise deed and court proceedings sent the same to the Finger Print Bureau for report

Said report confirmed that both the thumb impressions, on compromise deed as well as that on court proceedings, were identical

Ground taken by the petitioner, in the light of the opinion of Finger Print Bureau, appeared to have been raised as an afterthought

Presumption of truth was attached to judicial proceedings

Petitioner had tried to establish his case by raising plea of fraud and misrepresentation, which was not substantiated on the record, therefore, no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below was made out

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Father being unable to pay maintenance allowance sought impleadment of Bait-ul-Maal for payment of his same to his minor sons

Validity

If father was not able to pay maintenance allowance to his minor sons then relevant organ or authority of the State including Bait-ul-Maal and Local Government would be liable to pay maintenance to the minors

Petition for impleadment of Director and District Officer Bait-ul-Maal as parties was allowed in circumstances.

Suit was decreed ex-parte by Family Court in Pakistan and decree was sent to Family Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir for hearing and its disposal

Family Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir directed the judgment-debtor to deposit surety bond

Plea of judgment-debtor was that ex-parte decree of maintenance allowance passed by Family Court in Pakistan was not executable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir as same would be hit by exception (b) & (f) of S.13, C.P.C.

Validity

No procedure for execution of a foreign decree had been provided in S.13 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993

Family Court could exercise inherent powers in such circumstances in the interest of justice

Decree passed by the Family Court was to be executed either by the Court passing it or by any other Civil Court as directed by the District Judge

Powers to execute said judgment/decree provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in such situation could be followed by the Family Court

Court upon application of decree-holder could issue precept to any other Court which was competent to execute such decree

Precept in the present case was sent to District Judge in Pakistan in order to forward the same to the concerned Court at Muzaffarabad

District Judge had been empowered to direct any other civil Court for execution of a decree

District Judge in Pakistan while sending precept to the District Judge Azad Jammu and Kashmir followed the relevant law and did not commit any illegality

Courts in Pakistan were foreign Courts and Azad Jammu and Kashmir was a foreign territory

Judgments/decrees passed by Pakistan Courts could be executed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir under S.13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Where any of the provisions (a) to (f) of S.13, C.P.C. were attracted in the case then judgment/decree passed by a foreign Court would not be executed

Judgment in the present case had not been passed on merits to the case which was against the principles of natural justice

Foreign judgment in circumstances was not conclusive to be executed

Ex-parte judgment passed by foreign Court was not to be executed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Family Court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir was restrained to execute an ex-parte decree of maintenance allowance passed by a foreign Court

Wife-decree-holder might file suit on the basis of said decree before Family Court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Husband was bound to pay maintenance to wife till she was faithful and lived with him and if she voluntarily left the house of her husband then she was not entitled to maintenance

Wife was entitled for maintenance allowance only when she was forced to leave the house of her husband due to cruelty or violence but when she abandoned the house of husband with her free consent and willfully refused to perform marital obligations, she would not be entitled to any maintenance allowance

Wife had not established any act of cruelty of husband with cogent and reliable evidence

When wife was not willing to join husband, she was not entitled to maintenance allowance

Family Court was not competent to order for recovery of maintenance allowance

Impugned judgment was not sustainable which was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court neither framed issues nor provided the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim and rejected the application in summary manner

Applicant-husband was living abroad and rarely came back to Pakistan

Newspaper in which proclamation was published was not of wide circulation

Applicant was not properly served in circumstances

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not applicable in proceedings before the Family Court but general principles of said Code could be applied

Rejection of application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was not justified without framing of issues and providing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim

Ex-parte judgment and decree were set aside in circumstances

Suit would be deemed to be pending before the Family Court

Trial Court was directed to decide the controversy after providing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Ex parte decree was passed against the applicant-husband on 25-03-2015 and he filed application for setting aside the same on 10-02-2016 after a period of more than ten months

Limitation to file application for setting aside ex-parte decree was thirty days

Applicant had not filed application within prescribed period of limitation

Question of having no knowledge by the applicant with regard to institution of suit did not arise

Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application for setting aside of ex-parte decree being time barred

Family Court had legally exercised its discretion

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff-wife could not prove her claim before the Family Court with regard to maintenance allowance as well as cruelty on the part of defendant-husband

Defendant-husband was working abroad when plaintiff-wife left the house

Family Court had rightly dismissed the suit for maintenance allowance

No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of defendant-husband was that plaintiff-wife had abandoned his house on her own free will when he embraced Islam and she was not entitled for maintenance allowance

Family Court dismissed suit to the extent of plaintiff-wife and decreed the same to the extent of minor but Appellate Court also decreed suit to the extent of plaintiff-wife

Validity

Plaintiff-wife herself had culminated marital relationship from the date when defendant-husband embraced Islam

Plaintiff-wife stood precluded from claiming any maintenance allowance from the defendant-husband on account of termination of her matrimonial bond

Maintenance allowance was correctly and justifiably declined for valid reasons to the plaintiff-wife by the Family Court

Findings recorded by the Family Court were in accordance with law and evidence on record

Appellate Court did not take into consideration the fact that plaintiff-wife was living apart from the defendant-husband ever since the date of his conversion to Islam

Marriage between the spouses ipso facto had dissolved by operation of law

Plaintiff-wife could not claim maintenance allowance for the period she did not perform matrimonial obligations

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and modified to the extent of plaintiff-wife and would hold the field with regard to maintenance allowance awarded to the minor in consonance with the decree of Family Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.