“- - - - - It is clear that at that time minor was of
about 8 years whereas, now he is 17 years old and
is getting education in high school in higher class.
Undoubtedly, now much more expenditures took
place than those were earlier. Although
respondent has submitted that he is a poor man
and cannot bear expenditures at the rate claimed
by respondent/minor in his plaint i.e. at the rate of
rupees five thousand per month but learned trial
court has not believed the averment of plaint and
has evaluated available evidence led by the
parties and has considered the fact of class of
student/respondent in which he is studying and
also considered the status of appellant
Mohammad Bakhsh and has fixed maintenance
allowance Rs.2500/-. Respondent is a grown up
boy and needs more amount than it was fixed 7/8
years back. Besides, this value of daily used items
has been increased incredibly during this period
which are to be considered while fixing the
maintenance allowance. Further more, appellant
is father of respondent Mohammad Junaid minor
and he is duty bound to bear expenditures of
minor in education, health and other arrears of
life of minor. Learned trial court was justified in
enhancing the amount of maintenance allowance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to
high-light any misreading or nonreading of
evidence by the learned trial court.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that
impugned judgment and decree is apt to the facts
and circumstances of the case which is upheld and
appeal being devoid of any force is hereby
dismissed.”
The above findings are supported by the case law on the
subject i.e. cases titled “Ejaz Ahmed Vs. Judge, Family
Court and 5 others” (2005 CLC 1913), “Muhammad Ali Vs.
Judge Family Court, Depalpur and 2 others” (2010 YLR520), “Malik Ahmed Nawaz Awan Vs. Fariha Malik and
another” (2011 YLR 435), “Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Mst.
Nasreen Akhtar” (2012 CLC 1407) and “Muhammad Islam
Vs. Mst. Rashdah Sultana and 4 others” (2013 CLC 698).
| WP- Family Law 8753-15 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment