KHALID MAHMOOD vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD TAREEF and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by the respondents, which was decreed by the Family Court. The petitioner appealed this decree but failed to pay the required court-fee. Despite being directed to make up the deficiency, the petitioner failed to comply and subsequently filed an application to sue as a pauper, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with court-fee requirements. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a pauper, was entitled to exemption from court-fee payment and relief from maintenance obligations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to provide material evidence to substantiate his claim of pauperism. The Court affirmed that a mere bald assertion of being a student or unable to pay is insufficient to claim relief, emphasizing that the legal duty to provide maintenance remains paramount.
- Does a mere assertion of being a student or unable to pay constitute sufficient grounds to be declared a pauper for the purpose of court-fee exemption?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with a court order to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Is a petitioner entitled to relief from maintenance obligations based solely on an unproven claim of pauperism?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 27-9-1994 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief are that respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against the petitioner. It was decreed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rawalpindi granting maintenance allowance to respondents Nos.3 and 4 at the rate of Rs,1,500 and Rs,1,000 per month respectively vide judgment dated 10-7-1993. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi without paying court-fee. He was, therefore, directed to make up the deficiency of court-fee of Rs,15,000 on the memo. Of appeal before 31-5-1994. The petitioner, did not comply with the direction and after expiry of the period for payment of court-fee, moved an application for permission to sue as a pauper. The application was dismissed for lack of sufficient ground enabling him to sue as a pauper. The appeal was also dismissed for non-compliance of the direction to make up deficiency of court-fee vide order dated 31-5-1994. The writ petition filed by the petitioner also met the same fate.
3. It was urged by the petitioner before the High Court that he being a pauper, was unable to pay the maintenance allowance to the respondents. The plea was repelled with the observation that it was the duty of the petitioner to provide maintenance to the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made before the High Court that he being a pauper ought to have been exempted from payment of court-fee. The contention is devoid of any force. There is no material on record to suggest even prima facie that the petitioner is a pauper and unable to pay maintenance allowance to his wife and the minor child.
Mere bald assertion that he is a student and unable to pay the maintenance allowance does not entitle him to claim the relief prayed for.
5. We find no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Haji Bahadar Khan vs Habib Ahmad and others 2021 CLC 114, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 47, 2020 PHC 494
- HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN vs Mst. NAJMA BANO and others 2001 CLC 1273