Family Court must consider the financial status of the father when awarding maintenance.


 Family Court must consider the financial status of the father when awarding maintenance.

2009 PLD 760 SC

TAUQEER AHMAD QURESHI
Vs
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of appropriate maintenance allowance for minors granted by the Family Court, particularly focusing on the 20% annual increase in the allowance. The Court ruled that the Family Court's awarding of a 20% annual increase was arbitrary, illegal, and without basis and thus reduced it to 5% annually.


Key Legal Issues:

•Maintenance allowance for minors as per father's financial status
•Family Court's jurisdiction and power to award increases in maintenance
•Executability of Family Court decrees
•Executing Court's authority in declaring parts of a decree inexecutable


Holding:

The Supreme Court held that the Family Court's decision to award a 20% annual increase in the minors' maintenance allowance was arbitrary, illegal, and whimsical. The Court reduced the annual increase to 5% and upheld that minors could request an increase in the maintenance allowance in the future if their circumstances changed.


Reasoning:

•Family Court must consider the financial status of the father when awarding maintenance.
•Family Court acted arbitrarily without any basis or criteria in awarding a 20% annual increase.
•The executing Court has the power to declare a part of the decree inexecutable if it is deemed unreasonable or unfair.
•Executing Court can sever an inexecutable part of a decree and proceed with the rest.
•The father's obligation to maintain minors is limited to his status and financial condition.
•Minors have the right to approach the Family Court in future for maintenance adjustments based on changing circumstances.


Appeal partly allowed with a reduction of the annual increase in maintenance allowance from 20% to 5%


RAJA ZAHOOR LAW CHAMBER

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Woman who takes Khula is also entitled of Dower.

Image
The woman who takes Khula is also entitled of dower. W.P 68712 of 2024 LHC ASIF MEHMOOD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETC 10-04-2025 The Lahore High Court has decided an important legal point regarding women's rights and has ruled that even in the event of termination of marriage on the basis of Khula, a woman is fully entitled to her dower, and the mere taking of Khula cannot be considered a justification for deprivation of this right. This decision was issued by Honorable Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh on a petition filed by Asif Mahmood. The court issued a detailed eight-page decision in this regard. The petitioner had challenged the decision of the District Court of Sahiwal in which a degree of dower and dowry amount was issued in favor of the defendant (wife) after Khula. The honorable court ruled that if the husband's behavior is such that the wife is forced to take Khula, then in such a case the woman is not only entitled to Khula but also to dower, which is her legitimate ...
Read more

If the Husband dies during Iddat, the Divorced Wife will be Considered Widow

Image
  If the Husband dies during Iddat, the Divorced Wife will be Considered Widow 2017 CLC 516 Mst. ROHEELA YASMIN Versus Ms. NEELOFAR HASSAN The case involves a dispute regarding the inheritance rights of Mst. Roheela Yasmin following the death of her husband, who allegedly divorced her before his death but within the stipulated 90-day period during which he could have revoked the said divorce. The court held that since the divorce had not yet become effective as per S.7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the appellant remained his widow and was entitled to inherit his property. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Key Legal Issues: • Validity and effectiveness of divorce within the 90-day period. • Right to inheritance under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. • Procedure for reconciliation in Islamic law. Holding: The court concluded that the divorce pronounced by the deceased husband had not yet become effective as the 90-day period for revocation had no...
Read more