Maintenance allowance under section 9

 However, held that proceedings launched in term of section 9 of the Ordinance will not erode the suit subsequently instituted before the family court under the provisions of the Act. (iii) The plain reading of section 9(1) of the Ordinance shows that remedy of maintenance allowance under section 9 ibid is in addition to seeking any other legal remedy available. In view of legal position and case law discussed above, conclusion can be drawn that same matter cannot proceeding simultaneously under the Ordinance and the Act, however, subsequent proceedings under any of the above laws will not be a bar merely because earlier proceeding launched and concluded under the other law. (iv) The case of Muhammad Khalil-urRehman, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to maintenance allowance awarded by a Magistrate under section 488 Cr.P.C. and not under the Ordinance. In said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Act being special law, will prevail over general law of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Family Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction to try case of maintenance after promulgation of the Act. This judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case where the maintenance allowance is fixed under the provision of the Ordinance and Rules, which have specifically been saved under section 21 of the Act. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the impugned orders are not without jurisdiction


(2002 MLD 1716).
(2018 CLC 836),
W.P.No.238815 of 2018