MUHAMMAD LATIF vs QAMAR UN NISA AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to stay the execution of a maintenance order while admitting a writ petition for regular hearing. The petitioner, the father of the respondent, challenged previous orders that had enhanced the respondent's maintenance allowance from Rs. 50 to Rs. 150 per month, despite the respondent having attained majority and choosing to reside separately. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its discretion by refusing to grant a stay of execution regarding the maintenance order during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to grant a stay was a discretionary order. The Court reasoned that such interim orders are subject to final determination upon the ultimate disposal of the writ petition, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal impropriety in the High Court's exercise of its discretion to deny the stay of execution pending the final adjudication of the underlying writ proceedings.
- Is a High Court's refusal to grant a stay of execution on a maintenance order during the pendency of a writ petition a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Can a maintenance order be challenged on the grounds that the beneficiary has attained majority and resides separately?
- Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5th of December, 1978, by which it refused to stay the execution of the order dated 13th of April, 1978, while admitting his writ petition No. 5718 of 1978 to a regular hearing.
2. The respondent herein is the daughter of the petitioner who resides separately with her mother.
3. She was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 p. m. By a Magistrate, 1st Class, Sialkot, by his order dated 15th of September, 1966. Subsequently, she filed an application before the Family Judge for its enhancement under section 489, Cr. P. C. On 20th of June, 1974, which was dismissed on 4th of April, 1975. Against this order an appeal was taken to the District Judge and an Additional District Judge who heard it remanded the case for a decision afresh treating the application as one filed under section 488, Cr. P. C. On remand the Family Judge, by order dated 21st of February, 1977, enhanced the amount to Rs. 150 p. m. Payable from 26th of June, 1976. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Judge who again remanded it to the Family Judge to consider the matter afresh in the light of the fact that she had attained majority and refused to reside with the petitioner. On remand, the Family Judge again upheld his order and an appeal against it was dismissed on 16th of November, 1978. The petitioner, thereafter, assailed this order in Writ Petition No. 5718 of 1978.
4. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the propriety of the order of the High Court in refusing to grant stay on the premise that it was not legally recoverable but we do not see any sub--stance in it as it is a discretionary order subject to final determination as and when the writ petition is finally disposed of.