MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ZAMAN Versus MAQSOODA BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge regarding maintenance allowance. The petitioner, the husband and father, contested the maintenance awards granted to his wife and minor daughter, arguing that the lower courts misread the record concerning his financial status and that the quantum of maintenance was improperly fixed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the arguments and determined that the issues raised by the petitioner were exclusively questions of fact that had already been adequately addressed by the High Court. The Court held that in the absence of any substantial question of law, it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to re-examine factual determinations made by lower courts in maintenance disputes where no legal error is demonstrated.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance allowance where no question of law is involved?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained when the underlying arguments relate solely to the appreciation of evidence and factual findings?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Iftikhar Zaman petitioner and is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 28 October, 1987 passed in Writ Petition No.1447 of 1987.
2. Briefly the facts are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit before the Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal for the recovery of maintenance allowance from the petitioner. The trial Court allowed maintenance allowance to respondent No.1 (Mst. Maqsooda Begum, his wife) from 20 May, 1983 to 5 June, 1986 at the rate of Rs.500 per month and to respondent No.2 (Mst. Afshan Iftikhar, his minor daughter) from 3rd December, 1983 onwards at the same monthly rate. Both the parties filed appeals. But the Additional District Judge Sahiwal dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner whereas he accepted the appeal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 increasing the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.700 per month to both of them. Thereafter the judgments and the decrees of the Courts below were challenged by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in the form of a writ petition which was dismissed in limine. Hence the present petition.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been misreading of the record as no evidence had been produced by the respondents about the sound financial position of the petitioner. Secondly according to the learned counsel the quantum of the maintenance allowance had not been fixed properly.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel.
5. These had already been properly attended to by the learned Judge of the High Court. Since the questions raised before us are only of fact and no question of law is involved, no interference is called for' by this Court.
6. The result is that this petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. M .I . / M-311/ S Petition dismissed.