ABDUL GHANI vs MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ And OTHER
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which ordered the petitioner, a grandfather, to pay maintenance to his minor grandchildren following the death of their father. The petitioner contended that his advanced age, reliance on his own sons, and limited land ownership exempted him from this financial obligation. The core legal question was whether a grandfather is liable to maintain his minor grandchildren upon the death of their father, and whether the petitioner's financial circumstances warranted interference with the maintenance order. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the grandfather bears a statutory obligation to maintain his minor grandchildren after the death of their father. The Court ruled that neither the petitioner's age nor his limited land ownership provided a valid legal ground to evade this liability. Furthermore, the Court found the maintenance amount reasonable given current socio-economic conditions and declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the fair and just orders of the lower courts.
- Is a grandfather legally liable to provide maintenance to his minor grandchildren after the death of their father?
- Does a grandfather's advanced age and limited land ownership constitute valid grounds to avoid the statutory obligation of maintaining minor grandchildren?
- Can a maintenance order for minor grandchildren be challenged in a constitutional petition if no jurisdictional defect is shown?
ORDER
Muhammad Ashfaq, a son and Mst. Rafaqat Bibi, a daughter of Muhammad Afzal, a pre-deceased son of Abdul Ghani petitioner, have been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 p.m. i.e. Rs.300 p.m. for the son and Rs.200 p.m. for the daughter for the past three years and also till the time they attain majority by the learned trial Court (Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman, Civil Judge 1st Class) vide order dated 1-4-1991. This order has been upheld in appeal filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by respondent No.4. The petitioner who is a grandfather of the children has filed this Constitutional Petition to challenge the aforementioned judgment and decree.
2. Mian Muhammad Hanif, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner himself is an old man and is living with his sons, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the children. He has further argued that he owns only three acres of land, therefore, cannot pay maintenance to the minor children. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the two Courts below but the learned counsel has failed to point out any such defect. Merely because the petitioner is an old man and owns lesser land cannot be a ground to refuse the grant of maintenance to the minor grand children of the petitioner, who have a statutory right to get maintenance from their grandfather after the death of their father. The impugned order is quite fair and just. Keeping in view the present socio-economic circumstances prevailing in the country, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance is even excessive. I see no ground to interfere in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, this writ potition has no force, the same is dismissed in limine. .
Cited by 4 cases
- UMER DARAZ vs FAMILY JUDGE and 3 others 2018 CLC 1786
- Abdul Majeed vs A.D.J. etc. 2012 C.L.R. 1050
- ABDUL MAJEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others 2012 C.L.R. 1050, 2012 PLD Lahore 445
- GHAFOOR AHMED BUTT vs Mst. IRAM BUTT and 6 others 2011 PLD Lahore 610