Pakistan Case Law
2002 SCMR 1290

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs SAIMA RAFIQUE (Minor) and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2002 SCMR 1290
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,2647-L of 2001 Writ Petition No,18643 of 2000
Date2002-04-16
Judge(s)Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan
Authored byAbdul Hameed Dogar
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question concerns the determination and awarding of a reasonable maintenance allowance to a minor respondent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court granting a maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month from the date of the institution of the suit were well-reasoned, justified, and not open to interference by the apex court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law regarding maintenance allowances when the awarded amount is reasonable and based on proper reasoning.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law regarding maintenance allowances?
  • Is a maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month for a minor justifiable from the date of the institution of the suit?
maintenance allowanceminorconcurrent findingsleave to appealfamily law

' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12-6-2001 of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. We have heard the arguments and have gone through the impugned order which is in our opinion is based on proper reasoning. The lower Courts and the learned Lahore High Court have decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,1,000 per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent Saima rafique (minor) from the date of the institution of the suit which in our view is quite reasonable and justified. This Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law.

The impugned order is maintained, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.