Home Maxims & Terms Medical Treatment meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Medical Treatment

Medical Treatment legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2025 PLD 367 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 5, Sched.Maintenance allowanceScopeMedical treatmentPetitioner/father of minor contended that law did not identify "medical treatment" under the head of maintenanceValidity

Word 'maintenance' in the context of Muslim family laws, as far as wife and children are concerned, is inclusive of many heads not explained but is not exhaustive

Maintenance cannot be limited by cap and has to be looked into with reference to each case

If medical treatment either for a wife or minor does not fall within the definition of maintenance, then no husband would take either his wife or children for medical treatment and those dependents (under the law) would then be deprived of such maintenance allowance

Maintenance in such context has a wide definition and is inclusive of every possible action for the wellbeing of children and wife, but within means

Medical treatment cannot be scrapped from definition of maintenance and cannot be disregarded as one of the components to be considered as part of maintenance

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2012 PLC(CS) 499 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent
Art. 199Constitutional petitionRailway employeeMedical treatmentReimbursing of medical bill

Petitioner was retired employee of Pakistan Railways and his grievance was that authorities declined to reimburse his medical bill

Validity

Doctor of Railway hospital, had not admitted the petitioner in the hospital and compelled him to purchase prescriptive/diagnosed injections/medicines from open market and petitioner who was suffering from chronic disease having no other option resorted to purchase advised medicines from open market, as such petitioner could not be penalized for no fault on his part

Provision of health and education facilities are deemed to be the primary responsibility of the State in civilized societies

Petitioner who was retired employee of Pakistan Railways, was running behind State Functionaries for reimbursement of an amount which he had spent for purchase of medicines advised by doctor of Railway hospital because the injections/medicines were not available in that hospital which otherwise were required to be provided by the hospital authorities

Petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of bills for local purchased medicines/injections, as advised by doctor of Railway hospital

High Court directed the authorities to reimburse the amount spent by petitioner in respect of prescriptive injections/medicines of doctor of Railway Hospital

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Medical Treatment", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21964

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Medical Treatment"

PLC(CS) 2021
Writ Petition No.1351 of 2018, decided on 25th February, 2021.

2021 P L C (C

GUL MUHAMMAD Versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE / SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others

Court: Islamabad High Court
PLC(CS) 2019
W.P. No. 2143 of 2018, decided on 31st October, 2018.

2019 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others

Court: Islamabad High Court
PLD 2025
2025-February-18

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 367

MUHAMMAD IRFAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZWALA, DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLC 1973
Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 1970, decided on 6th April 1973.

1973

THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., QUETTA Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD

Court: Quetta
SCMR 1988
Civil Appeal No.69‑K of 1981, decided on 14th January, 1988.

1988 S C M R 681

GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 2 others‑‑Appellants Versus NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI and another‑‑Respondents

Court: High Court
MLD 2005
Cr. Misc. No.75 of 2004, decided on 2nd September, 2004.

2005 M L D 314

ASIF ALI ZARDARI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
MLD 2018
2016-August-26

2018 M L D 1185

MUHAMMAD AQEEL — Petitioner Versus The STATE through FIA — Respondent

Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
PLC(CS) 2016
W.P.No.20764 of 2015, decided on 16th September, 2015.

2016 P L C (C

Dr. ASIF MEHMOOD HAMRAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and another

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 2023
2023-February-2

P L D 2023 Peshawar 178

FARMAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through C.S. and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLC(CS) 1981
Appeal No. 36 of 1980, decided on 9th December, 1980.

1981 P L C (C

NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS

Court: Service Tribunal Sind