Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 89 of 1968, decided on 8th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th January 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4861 of 1967).
Ss. 488 & 489‑Main tenance‑Alteration in allowance‑Change in circumstances of parties‑Salary of husband raised and beneficiaries advanced in age with greater necessities of life to meet‑Increase in allowance held, proper‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 8th October 1968.
‑The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of a Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, whereby on an application by the respondent the maintenance allowance of the two minor children of the couple namely Iltahab Hassan and Mst. Afshan Munawar, which was fixed in the year 1964 in proceedings under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioner at Rs. 100 and Ks. 75 per mensem, has been raised to Rs. 150 and Rs. 100 per mensem respectively. Their eldest child Mst. Kahkashan Munawar was also allowed Rs. 100 per mensem by the original order but this was revoked at the instance of the petitioner from August 1966, when she got married.
The increase in the maintenance allowances has been order owing to a change in the circumstances of the petitioner as well as of the beneficiaries, as contemplated by section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The admitted change is that the basic salary of the petitioner has since been raised from Rs. 800 per mensem to Rs. 1,650 per mensem and he has also been relieved of the responsibility of maintaining the eldest child. On the other hand the beneficiaries have advanced in age with greater necessities of life to meet‑Iltahab Hassan has no reached the stage of college education. The impugned order does not call for our interference.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer