SAJJAD HAIDER MALIK vs COLLECTOR (REVISIONAL AUTHORITY), LAHORE and 2
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a maintenance matter involving a dispute over maintenance awarded to a divorced wife and children, and the determination of the quantum of maintenance. The core legal questions addressed relate to whether maintenance for children could be awarded on the application of their mother who was subsequently divorced, whether admitted payments made by the husband during the default period were accounted for, and whether the maintenance amount was correctly determined. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the maintenance granted to the wife already took into account her liabilities including the expenses of bringing up the children in her custody, and with the respondent counsel's categorical statement that no separate application for the children's maintenance would be moved, coupled with the agreement for the adjustment of Rs. 9,100 against realized maintenance, the petition lacked force. The Court accordingly refused leave to appeal, laying down that adjustments of admitted payments made during default must be factored into maintenance realization and that composite maintenance determinations covering children's expenses preclude separate subsequent claims.
- Whether maintenance for children can be awarded on the application of their mother who has since been divorced?
- Whether admitted payments made by the husband to the wife during the default period must be taken into account and adjusted?
- Whether the determination of the amount of maintenance is essentially a question of fact?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--In a maintenance matter the only controversy now left for consideration in this leave to appeal petition relates to three questions which are essentially of fact:-
(1) Whether, maintenance for children has been awarded on the application of their mother (respondent No,3) who, as stated, has since been divorced after the grant of maintenance to her. If so; whether, it was permissible.
(ii) Whether admitted payments by the petitioner (husband) to the said respondent during the default period have been taken into account; and lastly,
(iii) Whether, the amount of maintenance has been correctly determined.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that while granting maintenance to the wife all her liabilities including the expenses on bringing up the children, whose custody is with her, were taken into account, and that, it was not a separate and independent application for the maintenance of the children. It is further argued that such approach in these matters, according to learned counsel, has been approved by this Court in Ghulam Bari v. Mst. Kanecz Begum and others 1968 SCMR 1432(2).
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner while being unable to contest the factual aspect' of the afore noticed argument of the learned counsel for the respondent expressed an apprehension that a separate application for maintenance of the children might now be filed which would put the petitioner in double jeopardy. Although the learned counsel for the respondent, when asked to clarify his client's position, to start with hesitated to take a firm stand, subsequently after consulting his client categorically stated that no such application will be moved for the maintenance of the children.
4. ' On the second question after some discussion both the learned counsel agreed that the payments of Rs,9,100 made by the petitioner to respondent No,3 shall be given adjustment when the maintenance is realised.
5. ' The last point relates to the determination of the amount for maintenance. It is one of fact and stands concluded, by a reduction of doubtful validity but it having gone in favour of the petitioner and there being no challenge from respondent's side in this behalf we would not like to make any further comment.
6. None of the points raised has any force. Leave to appeal with the foregoing observations, therefore, is refused.