Find a Lawyer

ALI AKBAR versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

135 13 - The age of the disabled child is over father ???? Care for the father - Scope - The execution court decides to object to the father's dismissal of the child care allowance mentioned above - Appellate Court Maintains court order hanging Court / Family court executed review - Scandalous bizarre child / son claims that although he has attained majority, he cannot earn a living because of blindness Therefore, his father had a duty to maintain it - accuracy - even though his father usually saw it. It was necessary to take care. By the time his child reached the age of majority, however, there was one exception to such a rule, and that was that a child's disability due to weakness or illness - the disabled son had taken the stand that he had both. The vision has expired and he was not in that position. The appellate court observed that a person with a disability is required to undergo a medical examination first and then to a court. The flag issued by the Department of Social Welfare was presented to the High Court, which revealed that the disabled son was less vulnerable to the sight of both - the Family Court being his own way of being a judicial forum. Can regulate the car, the only exception is that it should not violate any defined principle of law and cause injustice to the parties - the Family / Executive Court is fully empowered to review its ruling. Thi - High Court set aside defamation order and judgment - Applicant's disabled son before execution court Or by stake

P L D 2017 Lahore 787

Before Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, J

ALI AKBAR—Petitioner

versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MALKWAL and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 14812 of 2012, decided on 2nd May, 2017.

Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)—

—5. 13—Disabled child having attained age of majority— Maintenance by father—Scope—Executing Court while deciding objection by father dropped execution proceedings regarding maintenance allowance of said child—Appellate Court maintained order of Executing Court—Review by executing Court/Family Court— Scope-r-Bisabled child/son had contended that though he had attained majority but, being blind he could not earn his livelihood, so his father was duty bound to maintain him—Validity—Held, although in normal course father was under obligation to maintain his child till attaining the age of majority, however, there was an exception to such rule and that was the disability of a child by infirmity or disease—Disabled son had taken stance that he had lost vision from both eyes and was not in a position to maintain himself—Appellate Court had observed that it was duty of the disabled person to get himself medically examined first and then move the Court—Disability Certificate issued by Social Welfare Department had been produced before the High Court which revealed that the disabled son suffered from diminished vision from both the eyes—Family Court being a quasi-judicial forum could regulate its own procedure, the only exception being that it must not be in contravention to any settled principle of law and caused injustice to the parties—Family/Executing Court was fully equipped with powers to review its order—High Court set aside impugned order and judgment— Review petition filed by the petitioner disabled son before Executing Court would be deemed pending and the same would be decided on merits—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly,

[pp. 789,790] A, E, C&D

Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun and others PLD 2013 SC 557 and Muhammad Tabish Naeem Khan v. Additional District Judge

Lahore and others 2014 SCMR 1365 ref.

Mehboob Rasul A wan for Petitioner.

Malik Surblund for Respondent.

ask a advocate free from Talamba lawyer