Under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (WPFCA, 1964) Family Courts has the power to grant interim maintenance under Section 17-A which states;

11. Under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (WPFCA, 1964) Family Courts has the power to grant interim maintenance under Section 17-A which states; Interim order for maintenance.—At any stage of proceedings in a suit for maintenance, the family Court may pass an interim order for maintenance, whereunder the payment shall be made by the fourteenth of each month, failing which the court may strike off the defence of the defendant and decree the suit.‖

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

Statute excluding a right of appeal from the interim order could not be bypassed by bringing under attack such interim orders in constitutional jurisdiction

, therefore Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi Vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary S&GAD, Karachi and others (1996 SCMR 1165) held as under:- 

“Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of statute excluding a right of appeal from the interim order could not be bypassed by bringing under attack such interim orders in constitutional jurisdiction. 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 order.” 

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

writ against interim order lies only if the order passed by the Learned Family Court is illegal, mala fide or without jurisdiction.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/mother states that writ against interim order lies only if the order passed by the Learned Family Court is illegal, mala fide or without jurisdiction. In this regard relied upon Awais Khalid Vs. Judge Family Court and others 2011 YLR 3034 (Lahore) and Abrar Hussain Vs. Mehwish Rana & 3 others (PLD 2012 Lahore 420).

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

To state that writ petition against interim order is maintainable

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father relied upon Irfan Ahmed v. II-Judicial Magistrate East, at Karachi and another 2006 MLD 135 (Karachi) and Mst. Samina Afzaal & 5 others Vs. Additional District Judge and another 2010 MLD 52 (Lahore) to state that writ petition against interim order is maintainable. Further states that no appeal is available against interim order, therefore writ petition being efficacious and adequate remedy lies against interim orders.
 
Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

It is a consistent view of this Court that in cases where factual controversies are involved, Constitution petition in the High Court is not the proper remedy,

In this regard reference is made to the judgment reported as Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others Vs. Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCMR 618) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-- 

"It is a consistent view of this Court that in cases where factual controversies are involved, Constitution petition in the High Court is not the proper remedy, Reference can be made to PLD 1980 SC 139, 1980 SCMR 933, 1981 SCMR 291, 1989 SCMR 918 and PLD 1991 SC 476.”

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

Factual controversies involved in the case, could not be solved without a full-fledged trial.

14. Similarly in Benedict F.D. Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others (1989 SCMR 918) it was observed that; 

"Factual controversies involved in the case, could not be solved without a full-fledged trial. Accordingly we find that the approach of the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction to decline relief to the petitioner, was unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same is refused." 

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331

Purpose behind insertion of section 17-A in Family Courts Act, 1964

15. This court in the case of Mst. Sitwat Chughtai and another v. Judge, Family Court, Lahore and another (PLD 2009 Lahore 18) for administration of justice laid down certain guidelines in the following manner:- 
(i) Purpose behind insertion of section 17-A in Family Courts Act, 1964 is to ensure that during pendency of proceedings with Family Court, financial constraints faced by minors are ameliorated; 

(ii) Family Court should broadly look into social status of parties, earning of defendant, his capacity to pay and requirements of minor is the touchstone on which Family Court should fix interim maintenance; 

(iii) For the reason that no right of appeal etc. has been provided against fixation of interim maintenance, such order being tentative and interim in nature, the Family Court should be more careful and precise in such context to ward off any injustice. 

Part of Judgment : 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
WP- Family Law
21213-14
2014 LHC 6331
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search