Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 798 2007 SLD 798 2007 CLC 195
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.10115 of 2005, decision dated: 9-09-2005
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ANWAR

VS

SHAMIM AKHTAR and others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Suit for grant of maintenance allowance, Iddat expenses and return of dowry articles---Constitutional petition had been directed against and decree passed by fudge, Family Court whereby maintenance allowance to minors and Iddat expenses to the wife was granted at the rate of Rs.500 per month and suit for return of dowry articles was also decreed for a sum of Rs.20,300---Maintenance allowance was too meagre to be commuted as in the present day, one could hardly live his life on an amount of Rs.500 per month---Same could not be termed as excessive, in circumstances---Legislature in its wisdom had not provided appeal against a decree where value of dowry articles and maintenance allowance was less than Rs.30,000 and Rs.1,000, respectively---Petitioner could not seek relief in constitutional petition by circumventing the relief not provided by statute in absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence---Interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction was declined, in circumstances. Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioner. ORDER SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 7-10-2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Khushab whereby he granted maintenance allowance to the minors and Iddat expenses to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.500 per month. The suit of respondent No.1 in respect of return of dowry articles was also decreed and in the alternate a sum of Rs.20,300 was directed to be paid. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the maintenance allowed to the respondents is excessive. The petitioner is serving in the Army in lower rank and is not in a position to pay the amount decreed against him. 3. As to the maintenance allowance is concerned, it is too meagre to be commuted. In the…
🔒
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