Terms of Section 14(3) of the Family Court Act, 1964 no appeal

Impugned order dated 07.7.2015 passed by the trial court which has been assailed before this court is interim in nature and in terms of Section 14(3) of the Family Court Act, 1964 no appeal or revision shall lie against the interim order passed by the Family court. Statute excluding a right of appeal from an interim order cannot be bypassed by bringing under attack such interim order in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case reported as “Syed Sagheer Ahmad v. Province of Sindh” (1996 SCMR 1165).

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

Age of majority according to the definition of maintenance in Mohammadan Law

While dilating upon the afore-cited legal proposition it would be appropriate to take wisdom from a pronouncement made by the apex court in a judgment cited as “Humayun Hussain v. Salam Humayun” (PLD 2013 SC 557). In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where an adult son claimed himself to be maintained by his father on the ground of disability. It was argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that father is bound to maintain his son till he attains the age of majority according to the definition of maintenance in Mohammadan Law. At this juncture, it was explicitly held by the apex court that from the very language of Para-369 of Mohammadan Law maintenance means and includes food, raiment and lodging. Such definition is neither conclusive nor exhaustive and undoubtedly has wider connotation which should be given an extended meaning.

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

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

Joint rcading of sections 17-A und 12-'4 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

By joint reading of sections 17-A and 12-'4 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), what comes out is that when the Family Court was made competent to pass an interim order for payment of maintenance, it was ut the same lime, made incumbent for the same Court to dispose of the case pending before it within a period of six months from the date of institution, meaning thereby, that the other passed winder section 17-A of the ,Act for payment of interim maintenance would, at the most, be effective for a period of six months, which time has been ullocated by virtae of sictiora' 12-A of the Act fot iinal disposal of a lis pending before u 'Iwdge family Court snd' when the maximum &ge ol an intetim order pussed under section t7''4 of the Act expires' the proceedings, if continued befote the Family Court' "the sami would be considered violation to the provisions of, section t2-A af the Act und this Vourt by viitue of, ptoviso attached to section 12-A ,j in, i", hus biei made competent to take notice 71 pnrdnn"y of a family suit-beyond the,period of six'months and to"poss any direction as deemi|'t""

PLD 2013 Lahore 64

Used In Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
29938-14

Right of appeal from the interim order

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that where appeal lies only against the final order a Constitution petition challenging the interim orders can yet be maintained is erroneous. In the Lahore case PLD 1990 Lah. 352 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant itself where a final order was passed pending proceedings in the Constitutional jurisdiction it was held that jurisdiction stood barred final order having come in the field.

It was further held:- The statute excluding a right of appeal from the interim order cannot be passed by bringing under attack such interim orders in Constitutional jurisdiction. The party affected has to wait till it matures into a final order and then to attack it in the proper exclusive forum created for the purpose of examining such orders

1996 SCMR 1165

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High court
Case Law no.
2018 LHC 1173

Nikah Nama is considered to be a public document

Nikah Nama is considered to be a public document but when its authenticity is impugned by any of the parties, it assumes the status of a private document and that the party claiming benefit under a document is bound to prove its execution. Relies on Matloob Hussain v. Mst. Shahida and 2 others (PLD 2006 SC 489), Qalandri Bibi v. Mst. Irum Bibi and others (2019 YLR 86), Sardara and Allah Ditta through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Bashir Begum and another (PLD 2016 Lahore 587), Mst. Ruqayya Bibi v. Additional District Judge etc. (PLD 2012 Lahore 408), Mushtaq Ahmed Malik v. Muhammad Sunawar Choudhary and another (2003 YLR 406) and Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Miss Asma Jehangir and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 301).

Part of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Family
3812/19
2020 LHC 47
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search