Find a Lawyer

---S. 5 & Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Main tenance--Increase in sum of maintenance amount of minor--High Court refused to pass order in constitutional jurisdiction to increase sum of maintenance of minor to proportionate increase in earnings of father of minor--Wife if could show that earnings of father of minor has increased she might move fresh application for maintenance of minor in appropriate Court.

Malik Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

Mazhar Hussain Bokhari for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th May, 1985.

In continuation of my order dated 10-4-1985 learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this writ petition was admitted on 29-10-1979 and the reason for which it was admitted for full hearing is stated in. the admitting note. He submitted that the Family Court had awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.55 per mensem for two minors namely, Bhai Khan and Mst. Gullan Bibi vide his order dated 3-6-1978. Thereafter, the custody of Bhai Khan was delivered to the petitioner, his father, and he was consequently no more entitled to receive any maintenance from the father. However, respondent No.2 Mst. Naziran Bibi, wife of the petitioner, challenged the order of the Family Court in appeal and as a result thereof the appellate Authority enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.55 per mensem for both the minors to Rs.100 for Mst. Gullan Bibi alone. The present petition was admitted for the reason that it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that even respondent. No.2 had only claimed a sum of Rs.150 for both the minors and that according to the calculation made by the appellate Court the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.500 per mensem. Consequently in such circumstances to provide maintenance of Rs.100 for his one daughter alone was prima facie unreasonable. It was on this point that the present writ petition was admitted with the direction of the learned Judge to the effect that the petitioner will go on tendering a sum of Rs.50 per mensem to respondent No.2 for the maintenance of Mst. Gullan Bibi in the meantime. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been making this payment up-to-date as directed in the order of this Court dated 29-10-1979. He is submitting that in the light of that order I should pass the final order to the effect that the petitioner should go making; payment of Rs.50 to respondent No.2 for the maintenance of Mst. Gullan Bibi. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other side pleads that it' flee petitioner was to make the payment of a sum of Rs.50 per mensem to respondent No.2 for the maintenance of his daughter, it was on the basis of the calculation that he was earning a sum of RS.500 per mensem. Learned counsel submits that if by now i.e. in 1985 the income of the petitioner has increased from Rs.500 per mensem, then the sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.50 per mensem for the maintenance of his daughter Should also be increased proportionately. I am afraid I cannot pass thin order in this petition which is pending In the Court since 1979. I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the appellate Authority but instead order that the petitioner will go on tendering a sum of Rs.50 per mensem to respondent No.2. for the maintenance of Mst. Gullan Bibi his daughter. If respondent No.2 can make out a case and can show that the earning of the petitioner has increased, she may move a fresh application for maintenance to the daughter in the appropriate Court which should be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made by me in this order. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of but there shall be no order as to costs.

H. B. T.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.