| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3810 2025 SLD 3810 = 2025 CLC 276 |
Balochistan High Court
Constitution Petition No.711 of 2023, decided on 29th August, 2023.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
Moula Dad Barech for Petitioner. Shoaib Ali for
Respondent No.1.
Constitution Petition No.711 of 2023, decided on 29th August, 2023.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
Moula Dad Barech for Petitioner. Shoaib Ali for
Respondent No.1.
ALI AKBAR ---Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. NASEEM and 2 others ---Respondents
Law: Oaths Act, 1873
Section: X,9
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: XXV,5,12
Law: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Section: 25
(a) Oaths Act (X of 1873)-------S.9---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 5 Sched.12---Maintenance allowance of minor girls---Enforcement of decree---Father (judgment-debtor), responsibility of---Scope---Denial of parentage---Scope---Judgment-debtor filed an application before the Executing/Family Court praying to discharge him from maintenance of lady/decree-holder's two minor daughters (also decree-holders)--Executing Court dismissed said application which judgment was maintained--Judgment-debtor filed a constitutional petition---Claim/plea of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) was that the minor girls were not his daughters---Validity--Record revealed that the plaintiff/respondent applied under section 9 of the Oaths Act with the prayer that if the petitioner on Oath refused the parentage of the minors girls, she would withdraw the claim of their maintenance, and if he refused, then she was ready to take Oath---Executing Court (Family Judge) allowed the application---Resultantly the petitioner recorded his statement on Oath, which was ambiguous and self-contradictory---Executing Court directed the petitioner to comply with the decree in letter and spirit---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, or non-observance of the mandatory law provisions in the proceedings, warranting interference by the High Court---Instead, the institution of the constitutional petition was just an attempt to cause delay, and deprive the daughters of their legal and Islamic rights---Constitutional petition, filed by judgment-debtor/father, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss. 5, Sched. 12---Maintenance allowance of minor girls---Enforcement of decree---Father (judgment-debtor), responsibility of---Scope---Denial of parentage--Scope---Judgment-debtor filed an application before the Executing/Family Court praying to discharge him from maintenance of lady/decree-holder's two minor daughters (also decree-holders)---Executing Court dismissed said application, which judgment was maintained---Judgment-debtor filed a constitutional petition--Claim/plea of the petitioner…