Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1214 2010 SLD 1214 2010 YLR 86
Lahore High Court
W. P. No. 851 of 2008, decided on 28-04-2009.
JAMILA, JAHANOOR ASLAM, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Abdul Ghafoor Saqi for Petitioner. Syed Zafar Ullah Salari for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4.

SHAMAS RASHEED

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJARKHAN AND OTHERS

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, Schedule,S.14

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched. & S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, maternity/medical expenses and dowry articles---Family Court decreed suit, whereby plaintiff/divorced wife was held entitled to maintenance at Rs.800 only for the period of Iddat, whereas minor was held entitled to maintenance at Rs.1200 per month till attainment of age of majority---Plaintiff/divorced wife after deduction of interim maintenance already paid to her was allowed delivery expenses of Rs.20,000 and a further sum of Rs.4500 as treatment expenses of minor---Lady was also held entitled to the recovery of dowry articles as per list attached by her---Defendant filed appeal against of the Family Court, and the plaintiff had also filed appeal against the same ---Appellant Court dismissal appeal filed by the defendant, whereas appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed---Appeal of the plaintiff was allowed in terms that maintenance of the minor was increased from Rs.1200 to Rs.3000 per month, till attaining the age of majority and the value of dowry articles was increased from Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.1,52,000--- Enhancement in the maintenance allowance was justified as Rs.3000 per month barely covered the expenses of a school-going child---Those were part of the delivery expenses too and it was the duty of the father of the minor as the provider for the basic necessities of the child---Father had to pay maintenance as decided by the Court---Petition filed by the defendant being without merits, impugned s and decrees need not be interfered in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: JAMILA JEHANOOR ASLAM, JUSTICE:---.--- A very brief background to present writ petition is that petitioner and respondent No.3 were married and respondent No.4was born in this wedlock. The bond broke-up and respondent No.4 has been in the custody of respondent No.3 since his birth. 2. After the break-up of the marriage respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, maternity/medical expenses and dowry articles of respondent No.3.…
🔒
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