Extent of grant of future maintenance to the minors.

4. The petitioner has no objection to the grant of past maintenance to his minor children/respondents No.2 to 4. He has only challenged the impugned decree only to the extent of grant of future maintenance to the minors. The law does not make any distinction between “past” and “future maintenance”. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Aurangzeb v. Judge Family Court, Khanewal and others (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1494). As per settled law a father is bound to pay maintenance allowance to his minor children till their legal entitlement. Mere non-mentioning of the word “future maintenance” in the plaint neither disentitles the minors from future maintenance nor absolves the petitioner father from the duty of providing maintenance to his minor children till their entitlement. There is nothing on the record to show that the minors or their mother/respondent No.1 are living with the petitioner after passing the impugned judgments and decrees, so they are not entitled to future maintenance. A child who is entitled to past maintenance is also entitled to future maintenance. If the plaintiffs-respondents in their plaint omitted to claim future maintenance along with the past maintenance, the Court itself is empowered to grant such relief for complete administration of justice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases of Samar Gul v. Central Government and others (PLD 1986 SC 35) and Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984). In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that both the courts below have not committed any illegality or travelled beyond their jurisdiction by granting future maintenance to the minors, which is their undeniable, legal and vested right. 

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
8427-15
2016 LHC 4626