Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1602 2022 SLD 1602 2022 PLJ 558
Lahore High Court
W.P No. 849 of 2020, heard on 22.2.2022, date of hearing: 22.2.2022
ANWAAR HUSSAIN, J.
Malik Waqar Haider Awan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Qadeer Asif Toor Ms. Raheela Saleem, Advocates for
Respondents.

MST. SHAISTA PARVEEN

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ETC.

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 14

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)---S. 14--Jurisdiction of appellate court against decree of maintenance allowance--Section 14(2) of Act, appeal against decree of dowry articles not exceeding Rs. 100,000/- is barred--Bar contained in Section 14(2) of Act is applicable to husband only and same cannot be applied to minor or wife--Since maintenance allowance granted to each person was less than Rs. 5000/- per month, therefore, appeal under Section 14(2) of act, was barred--This writ petition is allowed and impugned and decree passed by appellate court below is set aside, appeal of petitioner will deem to be pending before learned appellate court below. 2018 SCMR 1885; 2017 YLR 1684 ref. JUDGMENT Succinct facts of the case are that on 28.06.2012, petitioner, namely, Mst. Shaista Parveen (“the petitioner”) on her behalf as well as minor, namely, Muhammad Suleman Ajmal (“the minor”) instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles against Respondent No. 3, namely, Muhammad Ajmal (“the respondent”) on the ground that nikah of the parties was solomnized on 29.09.2009 and rukahsati took place 15 days thereafter; that out of this wedlock, the minor was born; that after some time, the respondent became cruel towards the petitioner; that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 200,000/- from step father of the petitioner on different pretexts and 11 months prior to institution of the suit, asked the petitioner to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- more from her step father but she refused whereupon the respondent kicked out the petitioner along with the minor from his house; that at the time of the marriage, the respondent was given dowry articles worth Rs. 5,63,200/-, which are lying with the respondent; that despite repeated demands, the respondent neither paid any maintenance allowance to the petitioner and the minor nor returned the dowry articles which constrained the petitioner to institute the suit. 2. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. He also instituted a suit for resultation of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated and consolidated issues were framed. After recording of evidence of the parties, learned trial Court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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