Pakistan Case Law
1985 SCMR 638

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Exercising The Powers Of Collector, Kasur And 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1985 SCMR 638
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 722 of 1981 W.P. No. 2793 of 1981
Date1981-06-23
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a Constitutional Petition challenging maintenance orders passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on two primary grounds: whether he was afforded an adequate opportunity to defend the case, and whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 500 per mensem was correctly fixed. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that both points had been adequately addressed and adjudicated upon by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference with the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the Court declined to grant permission for the petitioner to raise new points not previously argued. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment regarding maintenance orders when the lower court has already adequately addressed the issues of fair hearing and quantum of maintenance?
  • Can a petitioner raise new points for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
leave to appealmaintenanceconstitutional petitionright to fair hearingappellate interference

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 2-6-1981, of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional Petition arising out of orders of maintenance passed in favour of respondent No. 3, was dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on the main points raised before the High Court, namely, whether adequate opportunity of defending the case was afforded to the petitioner, and whether the amount of maintenance, i.e. Rs.500 per mensem could be fixed in this case. Both the points were adequately dealt with by the learned Judge in the High Court. In the circumstances of this case, there was no justification for the High Court for interference.

3. We do not consider it a fit case for grant of permission to the learned counsel to raise new points.

4. This petition accordingly is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.