PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 116
Present: Ali Baqar Najafi, J.
GHULAM FARID--Petitioner
versus
KHALIDA BIBI etc.--Respondents
R.P. No. 51524 of 2022 in W.P. No. 51618 of 2019,
decided on 14.9.2022.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 144 & O.XLVII R.1--Punjab Family Court (Amendment) Act, (XI of 2015), S. 17-A--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance--No annual increa was fixed in final order of both Courts--Introducing of amendment in Family Court (Amendment) Act--Automatic mandatory annual increase in maintenance allowance--Suit was decreed on 7.7.2009--Amendment required to be applied from date of amendment--Consolidated order--In paragraph No. 2 of judgment contention regarding 10% annual increase notwithstanding amendment made on 18.03.2015 was raised--However, this plea was not specifically dealt in paragraph but-was deemed to be rejected with dismissal of writ petitions filed by respective parties--Both Courts did not-fix any annual increase--Meanwhile, amendment was introduced on 18.03.2015 in section 17-A through Punjab Family Court (Amendment) Act XI of 2015 whereby automatic increase @ 10% was mandatory--An amendment imposing a monitory liability has to be strictly construed, therefore, required to be applied from date of amendment i.e. 18.03.2015--The 10% annual increase will be available from said date and not date of filing of family suit--Review petition dismissed. [Para 3 & 4] A & B
PLD 1954 Privy Council 22 & PLD 1970 SC 80 ref.
Mr. Abdul Rauf, Advocate for Applicant.
Date of hearing: 14.9.2022.
order
Through this petition under, Section 144 read with Order XLVII Rule-1 CPC, the consolidated order dated 23.06.2022 passed in W.P. No. 51618-2019 is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the points raised in the writ petition were not discussed in the order.
2. After hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the file, it is straightaway observed that in the writ petition the prayer was made to the extent of grant of 10% annual increase in the maintenance from the date of institution of the suit. Although this was not discussed in the order but the writ petition was dismissed in the background of other connected writ petitions. Obviously, after the amendment of 2015 the annual increase in the maintenance allowance is mandated by the statute but on the exceptional grounds, depending on case to case basis, it can be increased to more than 10%. Prior to the amendment in the statute it was granted at any rate by the family Court.
3. In the Paragraph No. 2 of the judgment dated 23.06.2022, the contention regarding the 10% annual increase notwithstanding the amendment made on 18.03.2015 was raised. However, this plea was not specifically dealt in the paragraph but-was deemed to be rejected with the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the respective parties.
4. However, admittedly, the family suit of the recovery of maintenance allowance was filed on 07.07.2009 and was decided on 29.04.2014 which order was assailed before the appellate Court, in continuation of the proceedings, but the appeal was dismissed on 29.07.2015. Both the Courts did not-fix any annual increase. Meanwhile, the amendment was introduced on 18.03.2015 in Section 17-A through Punjab Family Court (Amendment) Act XI of 2015 whereby the automatic increase @ 10% was mandatory. Of course, an amendment imposing a monitory liability has to be strictly construed, therefore, required to be applied from the date of amendment i.e. 18.03.2015. The 10% annual increase will be available from the said date and not the date of filing of the family suit. Reliance can be placed upon case titled “Gondicalo Hypolito Constancio Noronha vs. Damji Devji and others” reported as PLD 1954 Privy Council 22 and case titled “The Income Tax Officer (Investigation) Circle I, Dacca and another vs. Sulaiman Bhai Jiwa” reported as PLD 1970 SC 80.
5. With this observation, this review petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
(Y.A.) Review petition dismissed
0 comments:
Post a Comment