MANZOOR AHMED BUTT vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded to a divorced wife. The core legal question was whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000 per month, awarded by the Family Court and upheld by the appellate and constitutional forums, was excessive given the petitioner's financial circumstances and family obligations. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the petitioner's income—which exceeded Rs. 20,000 per month—and his prior admissions regarding payments, justified the maintenance award. The Court affirmed the decision, finding no merit in the contention that the amount was excessive. The key principle laid down is that where lower courts have concurrently determined the financial capacity of a husband based on evidence and testimony, and such findings are supported by the record, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the quantum of maintenance in its appellate jurisdiction, as such findings of fact are not open to re-evaluation.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantum of maintenance determined by lower courts?
- Is a husband's claim of financial hardship a sufficient ground to reduce a maintenance award when evidence shows his income is significantly higher?
- Does a husband's admission of prior payments to a wife during marriage support a court's determination of maintenance liability?
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J. -- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 17.1.2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in review application whereby Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner was earlier dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are that respondent No. 2, Mst. Anjum Naqvi, entered into marriage contract with the petitioner on 16.8.1995. The petitioner was having 12 children out of his earlier wedlock. The relationship between lie parties after some time became strained and the marriage was ultimately dissolved through decree of the Court dated 29.9.1998.
3. The respondent-lady filed a suit on 11.12.198 claiming maintenance till the termination of her Iddat period. The petitioner/defendant contested this application. The Judge Family Court vide his judgment dated 15.7.1999 decreed the suit with the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.
4,000/- per month to the respondent lady from 16.8.1995 'till the completion of the lddat period i.e. 31.12.1998. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The matter was further agitated by the, petitioner through filing a Constitutional Petition before Lahore High Court, Lahore, which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.11.2000. The petitioner filed a review application. Which also met the same Late vide impugned order dated 17.1.2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The only point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has a large family to support and an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month in the circumstances would be very high. We have considered the contention and have noticed that it has come on record in the evidence put forward by the petitioner's side that his income is more than Rs. 20,000/- per month.
He himself has also stated that he used to pay Rs. 3,000/-Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent- lady, which assertions were denied by the respondent-lady. The petitioner even said in his testimony that apart from the aforesaid amount he used to pay Rs. 500/- per month as pocket money to the respondent. Two forums below have recorded a finding of fact that the respondent- lady was not paid any money by the petitioner during the currency of the marriage. They also determined the rate of maintenance allowance keeping in view of the financial position of the petitioner. All these aforesaid findings have, been approved with reasons by the learned Judge in chambers of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. The present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .