| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 468 2026 SLD 468 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P No.1041-2026
Presented By: (MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI JUDGE
01.02.03.2026 Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar, Advocate for the petitioners.
W.P No.1041-2026
Presented By: (MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI JUDGE
01.02.03.2026 Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Amna Rani and another.
VERSUS
Family Judge Islamabad and another.
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section:
Summary The petitioners challenged an interim order of the Family Court whereby interim maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month for the minor was fixed and visitation rights were granted to the father through video link and to the grandparents periodically. The High Court held that these orders were interlocutory and tentative in nature, as the main family dispute regarding maintenance and guardianship was still pending before the trial court. The Court observed that interim maintenance should normally be fixed on the lower side initially and may later be enhanced after evidence is recorded. It further held that virtual visitation by the father and grandparents is not against the welfare of the minor. Consequently, the constitutional petition was not maintainable against interim family court orders and was dismissed in limine, with directions to the trial court to decide the case within four months. Tag Line A constitutional petition is not maintainable against interim or interlocutory orders of a Family Court, and interim maintenance and visitation arrangements remain tentative until final adjudication. ORDER; MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI J. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12.02.2026, passed by learned Judge Family Court, Islamabad. As per record, the petitioner No.1 (Mst. Amna Rani) instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance against respondent No.2, Arsalan Akram Sandhu. On the other hand, respondent No. 2, being the father of the minor, filed a petition for guardianship of the minor. The learned trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 fixed interim maintenance of the minor at Rs.50,000/- per month and further granted visitation rights to respondent No.2 through video link on a specified day for 15 minutes, as respondent No. 2 is residing in Australia. The learned trial Court also allowed visitation to the grandparents on every third week of the month for two hours. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with regard to the maintainability of the instant constitutional petition, as both the impugned orders…