Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1757 1991 SLD 1757 1991 CLC 766
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4311 of 1990, heard on 10th February, 1991
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
Rao Tariq Chaudhry for Petitioner. Khalid Iqbal Mian for
Respondent

Syed HAMID ALI SHAH

VS

Mst. RAZIA SULTANA

Law:

Section:

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ---- S. 9 --- Past and future maintenance---Entitlement---Past maintenance, could not be granted to minor, but application of father for custody of minor being pending before Guardian Judge, future maintenance till decision of application of father could be granted to minor --- Decree of maintenance allowance with effect from the date of filing suit for maintenance was however granted. Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Sheikh Muhammad Bashir P L D 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 596; Zafar Iqbal v. Mst. Maqsooda Begum and 2 others P L D 1989 SC (AJ&K) 17; Muhammad Ashraf v. Nasreen Begum through Legal Heirs and 3 others P L D 1989 Lah. 69; Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd. v. Messrs East Trading Co. Ltd. and others P L D 1987 Kar. 404 and Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others P L D 1972 SC 302 ref. JUDGMENT The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for declaration that decrees and judgments dated 21-1-1990 and 10-5-1990 passed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 married together at Lahore on 5-12-1980. Respondent No. 2, only issue was born on 9-11-1981 out of the said wedlock. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed suit for grant of maintenance to respondent No.2 in the Court. The petitioner contested this suit. The learned Judge, Family Court framed issues, recorded the evidence and after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit. Respondent No.2 was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 P.M with effect from December, 1981. The petitioner challenged this order through an appeal before respondent No.4, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated .10-5-1990. The petitioner has now impugned both these judgments and decrees. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their learned counsel and contested the petition while respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition argued that respondents - Nos.3 and 4 had no jurisdiction to grant past maintenance…
🔒
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