MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a father challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld his liability to pay maintenance for his minor children. The petitioner contested the maintenance amount as excessive and argued that the appellate order was barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the factual determinations regarding the maintenance amount, declining to interfere with the High Court's decision. Regarding the plea of res judicata, the Court held that the doctrine does not apply when the judgment relied upon arises from the same proceedings, specifically where cross-appeals against the same order are disposed of at different stages. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. Furthermore, the Court directed that if the petitioner failed to comply with the interim maintenance deposit order, the arrears must be recovered immediately by attaching his salary, without prejudice to other recovery methods.
- Does the principle of res judicata apply when cross-appeals against the same order are disposed of at different stages of the same proceedings?
- Can a court order the attachment of salary to recover maintenance arrears if interim deposit orders were not complied with?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a father in a family/ maintenance matter, from judgment dated 28‑5‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his Constitutional Petition disputing his liability to pay maintenance for his children, was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. The question of the liability of the petitioner to maintain his minor children, as directed by the trial Court, cannot be seriously disputed. The learned counsel, however, strenuously argued that the amount fixed as maintenance for the minors is excessive. He has also contended that the appellate order impugned before the High Court was hit by the principle of res judicata.
3. On merits we feel satisfied that findings of fact in the determination of the amount of maintenance do not suffer any infirmity, legal or otherwise, justifying our interference in the order of the High Court.
4. Regarding res judicata, it was pointed out to the learned a counsel that the question does not arise, because the judgment relied Upon by him operating as res judicata, was in the same proceedings in which the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance. What had happened that the appeals, filed by both the parties against the same order were heard and disposed Of at different stages. In such situation, it cannot at all be said that the order in disposal of the one appeal will operate as res judicata against the order in the other appeal.
5. The learned counsel realised the fallacy in his argument and could not press this point any further.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification for interference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Before this judgment is closed, the office has pointed out that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner might have made the deposit in pursuance of the interim order passed by B this Court on 10‑8‑1983. If that is so, in that case, it is directed that the arrears of maintenance shall be realized from the petitioner immediately by attaching his salary for necessary period until all arrears are recovered. This is without prejudice to other modes of recovery.
M.B.A./M‑460/S Petition dismissed.