Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition against concurrent findings of the Family Court and the District Judge regarding maintenance claims. The petitioner, the father of the respondents, argued that his children (respondents 4 and 5) were majors and living apart without reasonable cause, thus disentitling them to maintenance. The Supreme Court observed that while the record indicated the respondents were of majority age, the petitioner had failed to raise the specific plea or request an issue be framed regarding whether the respondents were living apart from him without reasonable cause during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction, as the petitioner's argument required the determination of a factual controversy for which no material had been placed on the record by the petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed that it would not interfere with factual findings where the underlying plea was not agitated before the lower courts. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a party raise a factual plea for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction when it was not agitated before the trial court?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts where the petitioner failed to request the framing of a necessary issue?
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5-4-1994, whereby Writ Petition No, 232 of 1994 filed by petitioner to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the Family Court, Kahuta and District Judge, Rawalpindi dated 26-3-1993 and 9-12-1993 respectively, was dismissed.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed suits against the petitioners for recovery of maintenance before the Judge, Family Court, Kahuta. The petitioner divorced respondent No,3 (who was his wife) during the proceedings. The Family Judge allowed Rs,1,800 as maintenance to respondent No,3 including the period for 'Iddat'. Respondents 4 and 5 were also allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs,300 each from 15-1-1991. The petitioner first challenged the order of Family Court before the District Judge in appeal which failed and thereafter, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court to challenge the decision of Family Court and the District Judge which too met the same fate. The petitioner has now come before this Court to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court.
Mr. Munir Peracha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the Courts below failed to take into account that respondents 4 and 5 being major and living apart from the petitioner without reasonable cause were not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner (their father). The learned counsel contended that there was no dispute regarding the ages of respondents 4 and 5 which was admitted by respondent No,3 in her statement before the trial Court as 22 and 16 years respectively.
It is true that the ages of respondents Nos.4 and 5 were stated to be 22 and 16 years respectively by respondent No,3 in her statement before the trial Court and as such both were major. But, no issue was framed in the case to the effect that respondents 4 and 5 were living without any reasonable cause apart from the petitioner, their father. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner raised any such plea 9r insisted for framing of such an issue in the case. The learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, rightly refused to interfere with the order of District Judge, in exercise of his Constitutional jurisdiction, as this aspect of the case related to the determination of a factual controversy in the case for which there was no material available before the Court. No case for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo485 judgments