2022 C L C 89
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAWAD JAN ARIF
Versus
Dr. AYESHA CHAUDHRY and 2 others
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S.17A---Interim maintenance---Autistic minor---Petitioner's 5½ years old daughter was suffering from the Autism Spectrum Disorder---Interim maintenance allowance had been raised from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month---Petitioner had served at eminent positions as neurosurgeon in Pakistan and abroad---Petitioner admitted that his wife's father was killed and that she had to provide for her mother as well---Held, that reason for excessive interim maintenance was manifestly reflected in the impugned order that the child whose maintenance was in issue was an autistic child whose needs/requirements were indeed over and above and in excess of what were generally associated with typical 5 years old children---In the present days of massive inflation, impugned order, especially in the case of an autistic child, could not be said to be unreasonable or even harsh---Amount fixed had a rational nexus with the requirements/needs of a differently abled child and, therefore, was quite proportionate---Impugned order was passed in the presence of the petitioner, who was heard by Family Judge---Autistic individuals had lifelong needs, more so at the tender age of 5---Facilities that would be luxury to typical kids were basically necessities for an autistic child, for example, swimming, skating, therapy etc. are basic skills to prevent drowning and develop coordination respectively---Specialist coaches were indeed expensive---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S.17A---Interim maintenance---Power to enhance/decrease amount---Family Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Purpose behind the powers under provisions of S.17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, to grant interim maintenance to the concerned parties was to ensure that during pendency of proceedings for grant of maintenance, affected minors were not faced with financial constraints---Family Court did not have un-fettered/un-bridled powers to fix interim maintenance at its discretion---Court may broadly look into the social status of the parties; earning of the defendant; his capacity to pay; requirements of the minor and on this touchstone fix interim maintenance---No right of appeal etc. had been provided against such a determination, because the order was tentative and interim in nature---Court had power to enhance or decrease the quantum of maintenance eventually after appraising/deciphering/examining the evidence produced during trial---Findings qua interim maintenance normally could not be interfered with, if the same were fixed upon the said parameters.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Judicial review---Scope---Judicial review was the means to ensure legitimacy and legality in administrative and legislative action---Such was a process whereby the intent of the parliament as contained in a statute was harnessed, secured and protected.
(d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Scope---Family court---No right to appeal---Held, that when the Legislature had specifically prohibited the filing of an appeal against an interim order, constitutional petition, if perpetuated, would tantamount to defeating/diverting the intent of the Legislature---Principle of judicial review could not be used to negate/erase/offend the manifest intent of the law-maker.
e) Medical jurisprudence---
----"Autism", defined---Special needs/problems/expenditures of autistic child elaborated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment