Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: XXXV,5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: I,10(2)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10(2)---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor children---Inability of father to pay maintenance---Paternal grandfather of minors, responsibility of---Scope--Where father is incapable of maintaining the minor children then such responsibility extends to the grandfather---Welfare of minor was of paramount importance in such matters---The petitioner (wife) filed a writ petition challenging the judgment passed by District Court which had allowed appeals filed by respondent No. 3 (paternal grandfather) and respondent No.4 (father) and set aside the family court s order impleading the paternal grandfather as a defendant in a suit for recovery of maintenance for the petitioner s two minor daughters---Respondent No. 4 (father) claimed financial incapacity, leading the petitioner to seek impleadment of Respondent No. 3 (paternal grandfather), a wealthy businessman with properties in multiple countries---Family court allowed this application, but the appellate court reversed the family court s decision---Pivotal question for consideration by the High Court was as to Whether the paternal grandfather could be impleaded as a necessary party in the suit for recovery of maintenance allowance when the father was financially incapable and the grandfather possessed sufficient means? ---Held: Documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding financial status of respondent No.3 showed that he possessed substantial wealth, including multiple properties and businesses in different countries---His financial standing remained undisputed, making it apparent that he had the means to contribute to the maintenance of his grandchildren---High Court acknowledged the hardships faced by respondent No.4 (father), however, it was crucial to consider that the minor children s right to maintenance should not be compromised due to the father s financial incapacity---The law, in such instances, allowed for the financial responsibility to be extended to the grandfather---Where father was unable to provide the maintenance, the grandfather must step in---Therefore, respondent No.3…