Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--I have observed that admittedly Respondent No. 2 is recorded owner of house which is subject matter of civil proceedings instituted by father of petitioner--Till sale transaction in favour of Respondent No. 2 is annulled by forum of competent jurisdiction, Respondent No. 2 is to be considered as owner and stance of petitioner that he had already got transferred said house in favour of Respondent No. 2, cannot be given any weightage at this stage--It is very strange to note that on one hand petitioner has taken stance that since petitioners had been maintaining themselves from income of house owned by him, they were not entitled to maintenance but on other has shown his readiness to transfer said house in name of respondents--Both these pleas do not coincide with each other--Moreover, when PW-1, during cross-examination, negated suggestion put by petitioner side that house was purchased by petitioner, no illegality has been committed by Courts below while passing impugned verdicts--Petition was dismissed.   [P. 241] A B 2011 SCMR 1073 ref. JUDGMENT Briefly put, Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed suit for recovery of maintenance which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Okara (learned Trial Court) through judgment decree, dated 25.03.2019, awarding maintenance to Respondents No. 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-each per month from six years prior to institution of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- each per month till their legal entitlement with 10% annual increase. In addition thereto, Respondent No. 1 was held entitled to recover Rs. 8,000/- as maternity expenses from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the verdict of learned Trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara (learned Appellate Court); hence this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only aggrieved of decrees of the Courts below to the extent of past maintenance. Adds that since the decree-holders had…

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