Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 392 2009 SLD 392 2009 PLD 18
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 11373 of 2008, decided on 11th September, 2008
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J
Ms. Khalida Perveen for Petitioner

Mst. SITWAT CHUGHTAI and anothers

VS

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, LAHORE and another--Respondents

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 17A

(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ---Preamble---West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is a special statute and has been enacted with a specific purpose to ensure expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and also matters connected therewith. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ---S.17-A---Interim maintenance---Determination---Principle---Family Court has power under S.17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, to grant interim maintenance to concerned parties during pendency of proceedings---Section 17-A has also mandated that such maintenance has to be paid by 14th day of each calendar month---In case of default, defence of defendant can be struck off and the suit is decreed---Purpose behind such legislation is to ensure that during pendency of proceedings with Family Court, financial constraints faced by minors are ameliorated---Family Court should broadly look into social status of parties, earning of defendant, his capacity to pay and requirements of minor is the touchstone on which Family Court should fix interim maintenance---No right of appeal etc, has been provided against fixation of interim maintenance---Such order is tentative and interim in nature---Family Court should be more careful and precise in such context to ward off any injustice. (c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ---S.17-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Interim maintenance---Enhancement---Factual controversy---Petitioners were aggrieved of quantum of interim maintenance fixed by Family Court---Plea raised by petitioners was that Family Court fixed too meagre an amount as interim maintenance whereas expenses required for maintenance of minor were Rs.25000/- per month---Validity---No details were given in plaint regarding quantum of school fee and other expenses of the minor but only a figure of Rs.25000 had been stated; it was impossible to determine veracity of claim of either party without recording evidence---Such exercise was not possible in constitutional jurisdiction, especially if finding was only tentative and not final and order was…
🔒
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