Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Constitutional Petition No.S-151 of 1986, decided on 13th January, 1987.
---S.5 & Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Suit for maintenance--Assessment of income of petitioner--Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction--Assessment of income of petitioner and fixation of amount of maintenance payable by him, made by Courts of competent jurisdiction after analysing evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, where petitioner failed to point out any illegality in assessment of evidence by Courts below.
---S. 5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction; exercise of--Petitioner and his counsel being aware about date fixed for adducing evidence on their behalf, remained absent without any intimation to Court and also failed to appear on date fixed for hearing -argufi8nts--Application of petitioner to re open his side and for permission to lead evidence filed on date fixed to judgment, held, was rightly rejected by Court below--Order of Court below was based on sound reasoning not suffering from any illegality, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Jamil Ahmed for Petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged in this petition the orders passed by XIV Civil Judge South Karachi and that of IInd Additional District Judge South Karachi. Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance in respect of Respondents Nos.2 to 5 against the petitioner which was allowed by XIV Civil Judge, South Karachi, @ Rs.200 per month. The decision of trial Court has been upheld in appeal by the IInd Additional District Judge, South Karachi.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that orders of the Courts below is based on misappreciation of the evidence on record concerning the economic condition and resources of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel that total emoluments received by the petitioner was only Rs.1,275 per month and out of this amount the Court granted maintenance of Rs.200 for each of the four minors which is excessive. The Courts below after analysing the evidence reached the conclusion that the income of the petitioner was much more than disclosed by him in his evidence and keeping in view the circumstances, allowed maintenance of Rs.200 for each, of the four minor children. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality in the assessment of evidence by A the Courts below except that fixation of the maintenance was excessive and was based on misappreciation of evidence is not disputed that the Courts below were possessed of the jurisdiction to grant maintenance on the application of the petitioner and the fact that the maintenance was fixed as a result of alleged misappreciation of the evidence by the Court is not sufficient ground for interfering with their orders in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel also contended that the order of the respondent No.7 was passed against the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not given proper hearing in the case. This contention of the learned counsel is also without substance. From the order dated 2-5-1983 it is quite clear that the plaintiff closed his side in the case on 20th February, 1982 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner (defendant) on 3-3-1982. On 3-3-1982 and thereafter petitioner and his counsel remained absent without intimation to the Court with the result the case as fixed for hearing of arguments on B 24-3-1983 on which date after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff /respondent No.1, the case was adjourned to 27-3-1983 for judgment. It was at this stage that an application was filed by the petitioner to reopen his side and for permission to lead evidence which was rejected on 2-5-1983. The order passed by the Civil Judge declining to reopen the side of the petitioner is based on sound reasoning and does not suffer from any illegality. No case for interfering with the orders of Courts below is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.
H . B . T . / G-40/ K Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer