It is clear from the preamble of the Family Act that the law was enforced with a vivid object to take out the matters falling within the ambit thereof from the ordinary regime qua dispensation...........

 2024 SCMR 1642

It is clear from the preamble of the Family Act that the law was enforced with a vivid object to take out the matters falling within the ambit thereof from the ordinary regime qua dispensation of justice , and for the expeditious disposal of such matters , a special forum was created in which the rigors of procedural implications and the requirements of the Evidence Law ( Qanoon - e - Shahadat Order , 1984 ) were either dispensed with or were simplified ; with an addition of a statutory mechanism , enabling the parties for an amicable settlement of their dispute.

Since the legislature has conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Family Courts , by virtue of section 55 of the Family Act , to expedite family cases and tried to cordon off family litigation to the extent of a single family appeal , it would not reflect well on a Constitutional Court to interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Writ Jurisdiction as provided under Article 199 of the Constitution , unless the jurisdiction exercised by the Family Courts was contrary to law and / or findings reached in exercise of said jurisdiction are perverse and without proper appreciation of evidence that non - interference would lead to a grave miscarriage of justice or for that matter injustice .

C.P.L.A.263-K/2024

Muhammad Shamim v. Mst. Asma Begum and others

Read More

نان ونفقہ میں سالانہ اضافہ ابتدائی ڈگری(basic)کی رقم بجائے موجودہ(current) رقم پر ہوگا مثلا اگر فیملی کورٹ 5000 روپے ماہوار خرچہ ناں و نفقہ ڈگری کرتی ہے تو پہلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 5000 روپے کی رقم پر ہوگا اگلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 5500 روپے اور اگلے سال سالانہ اضافہ 6050 روپے کی رقم پر ہوگا

 Section 17-A(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 interpreted to hold that it postulates compound calculation of annual 10% increase in the maintenance allowance.

It is abundantly clear that Section 17-A(3) of the Act is a beneficial, remedial or curative provision which calls for liberal interpretation. It is triggered when the Court omits to prescribe annual increase in maintenance or does not expressly specify if annual increase so prescribed will take effect on compound or non-compound basis while passing a decree under Section 17-A(2) read with Section 12(2) of the Act. If the legislature has not specifically provided for compound calculation in Section 17-A(3) of the Act, it is equally true that the legislature(naeem) has also not provided otherwise. The expression „the maintenance fixed by the Court shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year” ordinarily imply that quantum of maintenance fixed under a decree does not remain static or constant but is a variable figure which is meant to increase after each year. After increase of 10% at the end of first year, a new quantum of maintenance comes in field and the amount gets merged or amalgamated in the quantum of maintenance(naeem) fixed by Court. The process is repeated after each year till the legal entitlement of wife or children under the decree. Therefore, annual increase of each year is required to be calculated on the merged amount of last preceding year for the reason that 10% increase is intrinsically linked with the principal amount and is an inseparable part of the decree. If the rent is traditionally increased with reference to the last prevailing rent, there is no reason why maintenance should not be increased based on the same principle. The compound calculation of maintenance not only caters for inflation and rising cost of living but also allows to account for growing needs and requirements of wife and children, thus, reducing the occasions to resort to Court seeking enhancement in maintenance allowance. Hence(naeem), it is concluded that when a decree of maintenance does not prescribe an annual increase or is silent qua calculation of prescribed annual enhancement on principal or aggregate amount of maintenance, Section 17A(3) of the Act will come into operation and the Executing Court shall calculate the due decreed amount on compound basis.

7340/24
Saba Gull Shahd & 2 Others Vs Additional District Judge Faisalabad etc
Mr. Justice Abid Hussain Chattha
09-10-2024
2024 LHC 4177

Read More

فیملی مقدمات میں ضابطہ دیوانی اور قانون شہادت کا اطلاق نہ ہونے کے باوجود درخواست زیر دفعہ 12(2) ضابطہ دیوانی دائر کی جاسکتی ہے

 1. An application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) is maintainable before a Family Court established under the Family Courts, Act, 1964 despite of exclusion of provisions of the Code ibid in the light of Section 17 of the Act ibid.

2. Though it is not a principle of universal application that in each and every case, the court is bound to frame the issues before deciding the (naeem)fate of an application under Section 12(2) of the "C.P.C." but where misrepresentation and fraud have been alleged and prima facie a case is made out, in such an eventuality said application should have not been dismissed summarily.

Writ Petition-1234-23
MISBAH IFTIKHAR VS ALEESA ETC
Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf
26-09-2024
2024 LHC 4133

Read More

فیملی اجرا میں ضامن کی ذمہ داری۔

2024 CLC 1744
PLJ 2024 Lahore 683

A surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the judgment debtor and he was as much bound by his undertaking as was the judgment debtor, and both were collectively and severely liable to make payment to the decree holder. While construing the tenure and extent of surety bond, the words and recitals of the surety bond must be taken into consideration to gather the intention of the executant of said bond and the bond must be strictly construed. A surety is liable only upto the extent to which he is clearly bound.

Through the order dated 28.11.2015 the learned executing Court directed respondent No.5 to submit surety bond of Rs.400,000/- with one local surety in the like amount and in compliance of said order, the petitioner submitted surety bond of Rs.400,000/- on 03.12.2015 and vide order dated 29.01.2016 the learned executing Court on submission of surety bond of Rs.400,000/- released respondent No.5 which facts clearly established that the petitioner was stood surety only of Rs.400,000/-. Contract of surety had provided that maximum he was liable to the tune of Rs.400,000/-. Orders of learned executing Court did not find mentioned that the respondent No.5 would arrange a surety for the payment of the entire decretal amount. Petitioner stood surety amounting to Rs.400,000/- only, which he has paid before the learned Executing Court on different occasions as detailed in his application to discharge him from the liability as surety. Said fact was not denied by respondents No.2 to 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has satisfied the amount for which he stood surety.

WP 5215-22

MASOOD UL HASSAN VS

ADJ ETC

Read More

فیملی مقدمات میں سالانہ اضافہ کب سے لاگو ھوگا

2022 MLD 1762

Sub-section (3) of Section 17A of the Family Court Act is a provision the application whereof is conditional upon failure or omission of the Family Court to prescribe the annual increase while fixing the maintenance. It is also manifest that the increase contemplated under the said provision is a mandatory one and the Court is left with no discretion in that regard. Needless to observe that any increase under the above provision is coextensive in duration with the entitlement for maintenance. Further, the increase in maintenance under Section 17A(3) of the Act is automatic in the sense that no decree is required to be passed and the same is recoverable by the executing court while enforcing the statutory obligation. The rate of annual increase in the maintenance has also been fixed by the legislature to be at ten percent each year and the base value (i.e. the maintenance fixed by the Court) to which such rate of increase applies remains constant throughout the period of application of Section 17A(3) of the Act.

Entitlement to maintenance of wife and children is not only a right recognized by law and the religion of Islam but the same is a part and parcel of rights to life and dignity, as enshrined in Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Growth of children, the cost of living, change in status of the parties, change in the expenditures incurred based on needs of children are some of the factors which may provide for a fresh cause of action for the children to demand enhanced maintenance allowance. The Superior Courts of the country have ensured nourishing rights of the minors in such a manner that applications for enhancement of maintenance allowance filed subsequent to the decree have been held to be maintainable while observing that maintenance was a continuous process and a person entitled to be maintained had a right to approach the court for adequate maintenance allowance. If maintenance allowance granted by the Family Court was insufficient and inadequate, then institution of the fresh suit was held to be not necessary rather Family Court could entertain an application for enhancement of the maintenance allowance5. Therefore, there has not been any hindrance in the way of person entitled for maintenance to seek enhancement thereof in accordance with changed circumstances. However, the Provincial legislature was empathetic enough to provide an additional cushion in the form of Section 17A(3) of the Act to automatically cover the mistakes/omissions of the Court in terms of mandatory annual increase of the maintenance. The enactment of the above provision, besides making up for the judicial omission to order annual increase in the maintenance for enabling those entitled to cope up with inflation, purports to achieve the objects of reducing burden of costs, delays and toil of litigation and prevent burdening of the judicial system with adjudication in this category of cases. Section 17A(3) of the Act is, therefore, a beneficial and remedial or curative piece of legislation, which must be liberally construed.

By now, it is well settled that in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, any change in law affecting substantive rights has prospective effect. A prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. A retrospective statute, on the other hand, operates backwards and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. However, a statutory provision cannot be termed to have been given retrospective effect merely because it affects existing rights or because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing or operation thereof is based upon the status that arose earlier.

The provision of Section 17A(3) creates a new statutory right of automatic annual increase in the maintenance fixed by the Court in cases where annual increase has not been prescribed. It does not operate backwards. The fact that statutory prerequisites under Section 17A(3) of the Act (i.e. fixation of maintenance by the Court and omission or failure of the Court to prescribe annual increase in the maintenance) may be drawn from a period prior to the enactment does not render application or operation of the said provision to be retrospective, particularly when the automatic annual increase in the maintenance takes effect from the date of enactment and not the period prior to that.

Read More

-Application for fixing interim maintenance allowance of minor under S.17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, dismissal of-

 PLD 2019 LAHORE 226

Ss. 14 & 17A---Interim order---Appeal---Scope---Application for fixing interim maintenance allowance of minor under S.17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, dismissal of---Where dismissal of such application was tantamount to declining the relief of interim maintenance allowance permissible to the minor during the pendency of suit, it amounted to final determination of claim to that extent and hence could not be treated merely as an interim/interlocutory order that did not finally determine anything---Such dismissal would amount to 'a decision given' in terms of S.14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Consequently an appeal against the same would be available before the Appellate Court in case the minor was aggrieved of the same on any available ground.

Read More

Maintenance allowance of the minors---Financial status of the father--- Proof---Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent (plaintiff/mother) was unable to procure and bring on record salary slip of ...............

 Maintenance allowance of the minors---Financial status of the father--- Proof---Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent (plaintiff/mother) was unable to procure and bring on record salary slip of the petitioner, he himself was obliged to bring on record reliable and trustworthy record/documents disclosing his monthly salary---Petitioner though had produced (got exhibited) in evidence his alleged salary slip, but said salary slip by no means qualified standards to attain trustworthy status for reliance on certain counts; one that it did not conform with minimum standards of wages, and second that it was a document handed out and produced by the petitioner himself, which from the face of it appeared to be a computer generated copy lacking any sort of verification on behalf of the petitioner's employer---To prove said document (salary slip), the petitioner could have easily adduced his bank statement of the salary account, transpiring exact deposits from his company on account of his salary; he could have also produced his employer or any other authorized official of the company in support of sanctity, truthfulness and genuine status of said document (salary slip)-Petitioner's employer or his authorized official, whilst appearing in witness box, could have brought on record bank and tax record to head of his salary---However, the petitioner did not do the same and only produced said two documents (salary slip and salary account opening form) for proving his salary, which attempt fells short on account of no evidentiary value attached to both said documents... Though the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 are not stricto sensu applicable to family matters, but exhibited salary slip was bereft of any strength and evidentiary value---If salary slip had been an official/attested/verified document, then situation would have been different, but genuine origination and sanctity of exhibited salary slip was not of required standards for being relied upon---In the circumstances, the Courts below had no option but to believe the evidence produced by the respondent (plaintiff / mother) regarding immediate necessities of claimants of maintenance allowance and fixing up same keeping in light the petitioner's obligations as well---No ground whatsoever was available to substitute the concurrent findings of courts below.

Syed ZAIN MUNTAZAR MEHDI versus Mst. SARA NAQVI and othersWrit Petition No.370 of 2024
2024 CLC 1580

Read More