| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 408 2019 SLD 408 2019 PLD 102 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 27141 of 2015, Heard on 15-11-2018.
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Liauqat Ali Butt
Respondent(s) by: Saqib Haroon Chishti
Writ Petition No. 27141 of 2015, Heard on 15-11-2018.
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Liauqat Ali Butt
Respondent(s) by: Saqib Haroon Chishti
MAQSOOD PERVAIZ CH.
VS
MST. NAUSHEEN CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 17A
Law: Family Courts Rules, 1965
Section: 22
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 17-A---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by daughter who had attained majority---Daughter living separately from father in circumstances where father had already made financial arrangements for daughter---Effect---Daughter, who was aged 35 years and allegedly remained unmarried, filed a suit against her separated parents for recovery of maintenance allowance---Family Court fixed the interim maintenance @ Rs.18,000/- with the direction to the father to pay the maintenance to the daughter---On failure to pay the interim maintenance, the Family Court decreed the suit by invoking the provisions contained in S.17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 and directed the father to pay Rs.20,000/- per month with 20% annual increase from the date of institution of the suit till marriage of the daughter---Father contended that he could be held responsible for payment of maintenance to the daughter only when she showed obedience to him; that his daughter was a major and she was avoiding living with him---Validity---Daughter was a major having age of 35 years and she had instituted the suit against both her parents---Daughter lived separate from her father since separation of matrimonial tie of her parents---Admittedly, soon after separation, the father had arranged a source of maintenance for the daughter in the shape of house handed over to the mother, who initially maintained her through the income of rent---Said fact clearly showed that the father was well aware of his responsibilities to maintain her daughter and for that very purpose he had made sufficient arrangements---Strangely, the Family Court had only burdened the father with the liability of maintenance even though the daughter had claimed maintenance from both her parents---Decree for maintenance passed by Family Court was set-aside in circumstances---High Court directed that suit filed by daughter for recovery of maintenance allowance shall be deemed to be pending before the Family Court, which shall decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492