KHALID ASHRAF KHAN Versus Mst. ZAINAB KHAN

SYED MUDASSER AMEER, J.--- Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called into question the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. He seeks setting aside thereof and dismissal of the suit filed by respondent No.1.

2.Briefly stated, respondent No.1. namely Mst. Zainab Khan, daughter of the petitioner, instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from January 2008 to September 2013, along with future maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

3.The case of the respondent was that she was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and her mother, Mst. Ghazala Qureshi, and after dissolution of marriage, she remained under the care of her mother, who bore all her expenses including education. It was alleged that the petitioner, despite sufficient means, failed to maintain her.

4.The petitioner contested the suit by denying even the relationship of father and daughter and set up a case that the respondent was not born out of lawful wedlock. He also challenged entries regarding her parentage and date of birth and even filed a separate declaratory suit, which did not succeed.

5.After full trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2020. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with costs. Hence, this petition.

6.Heard. Record perused.

7.At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to a single point, namely, that the respondent, being major and well educated, was not entitled to maintenance and that the direction to pay future maintenance till her marriage is excessive.

8.Reliance was placed on Alaf Din v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (PLD 1970 SC 75) and Qudrat Ullah v. Additional District Judge Renala Khurd (PLD 2024 SC 581) .

9.The reliance, however, is misconceived.

10.In Alaf Din v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar , the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not lay down that maintenance ceases on attainment of majority. On the contrary, it was held that the entitlement depends upon whether the child is able to maintain itself, and that such determination must be made keeping in view the status and circumstances of each family. It was further held that maintenance continues until the child is in a position to earn a livelihood in an honest and decent manner consistent with family status.

11.The said principle has been reaffirmed and further elaborated in Qudrat Ullah v. Militonad District Judge. Renala Khurd , wherein it has been held that maintenance includes not only food, clothing and lodging, but also necessary expenses for mental and physical well-being. including education. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a father is duty bound to maintain his unmarried daughter till she completes her education and is able to support herself.

12.The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the observation that such obligation continues " till she completes her graduation studies and gains an employment to support herself " does not advance his case. The said condition is not to be presumed; it must be established through evidence. The burden to show that the daughter has attained financial independence or has secured gainful employment lies upon the person asserting such fact. Mere assertions that the respondent is highly qualified or residing abroad cannot substitute proof.

13.In the present case, no such evidence was led either before the trial Court or the appellate Court. Even before this Court, the contention that the respondent is self-sustained or employed is based entirely on conjecture. In the absence of proof that she has actually gained employment and is able to maintain herself, the obligation of the father cannot be said to have ceased.

14.Thus, the legal position is clear. The test is not age alone, but the ability of the child to maintain herself in a manner commensurate with her status, and such ability must be proved, not presumed.

15.In the present case, the respondent was admittedly a student at the time of institution of the suit. There is nothing on record to show that she had attained financial independence.

16.Even otherwise, the plea now raised by the petitioner is beyond the pleadings. In his written statement, he did not take the stance that the respondent was self-sufficient or not entitled to maintenance on account of her age or educational status. No issue was framed in this regard, nor was any evidence led.

17.It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to raise a new plea at the revisional stage, particularly when involves determination of factual controversy.

18.There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner, throughout the proceedings, denied even the relationship of father and daughter and pursued litigation on that basis, which failed. Having done so he cannot now be permitted to shift his stance and seek reduction of maintenance on a new footing.

19.The Courts below have concurrently held, on the basis of evidence, that the petitioner possesses sufficient means. This finding has not been shown to suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence.

20.The amount awarded is neither excessive nor arbitrary. Rather, it is commensurate with the needs of the respondent and the status of the parties.

21.The scope of constitutional jurisdiction is limited. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal. Interference is warranted only where there is jurisdictional defect, misapplication of law, or perversity. Reliance may be placed on Muhammad Shakeel v. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad (PLD 2025 SC 572) and Maqbool Ali v. Mst. Raheela (2025 SCMR 1275) .

22.No such infirmity has been pointed out. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law.

23.No case for interference is made out.

24.Consequently, this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

UN/127/P Petition dismissed.