Expenditures for the marriage of children

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case. Further contends that learned Judge Family Court has no powers to pass such order. Argued that the amendment sought by respondents has changed the entire complexion of the suit. Moreover, Schedule of Family Court Act, does not provide the expenditures for the marriage of children. He relies on “Sh. Muhammad Siddiq v. Khurram Gulraiz and 2 others” (1998 MLD 624), “Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and another.” (PLD 1982 Lahore 92), “Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Hajra Bibi and 2 others” (PLD 2007 Lahore 515) and “The Muree Brewery Co. Ltd v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others” (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 279).

Part in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Maintenance
21917-15
2017 LHC 2220