MANZOOR AHMED vs HAMAD RAZA and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition, which had challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing a maintenance suit in favour of the petitioner's minor children. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the maintenance allowance awarded to the minors and the petitioner's contention regarding being denied an opportunity to produce evidence and the correct computation of his salary. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per child was neither exorbitant nor disproportionate given the petitioner's admitted salary, and the financial status was not the sole determining factor since parentage was undisputed. The Court laid down the principle that where parentage is admitted and the salary slip demonstrates sufficient earning capacity, concurrent factual determinations regarding maintenance will not be interfered with, especially when the awarded amount is commensurate with the father's financial standing.
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding maintenance allowance for minors can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction when parentage is admitted?
- Does the denial of an opportunity to lead evidence vitiate a maintenance decree where the party's own salary slip establishes sufficient financial capacity?
- Whether a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per child is exorbitant for a bank officer earning a substantial salary?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against an order dated 26-4-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Constitution petition of the petitioner to assail the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad dated 22-1-2001, by means of which judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31-5-2000 was upheld.
2. Resume of facts giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal is that out of the wedlock between the petitioner and Mst. Nasreen lqbal, respondents 1 and 2 were born.
Subsequently differences arose between the spouses and ultimately, they fell apart. It is stated that both son and daughter of petitioner aged 9 and 6 respectively living with their mother and getting their education in a school, had instituted suit for maintenance on 16-3-1998 against the petitioner claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,2000 each per month. On account of non- appearance of the petitioner, he was proceeded ex parte, but subsequently the ex parte order was set aside and petitioner had filed the written statement admitting the respondents as his son and daughter and reiterated that he was an Officer in the Allied Bank of Pakistan. Eventually, the maintenance suit was decreed in favour of respondents for Rs,2,000 per month per child with effect from the date of institution of the suit till the minors attain the age Of puberty. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but the same was dismissed and thus he had invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but his prayer was turned down in terms of judgment sought to be impugned herein.
3. We have heard Mr. S. M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. He has vehemently argued that the Courts below had misconstrued Rs,22,072 as carry home salary of the petitioner.
According to learned counsel, his taking away monthly salary is Rs,16,000 and no opportunity was given to him to prove his case, inasmuch as, on the day of recording the evidence, one of his closest relatives had expired and he was deprived of opportunity to produce his evidence.
4. Be that as.It may, if at all opportunity had been provided, even then the financial status of the petitioner could not have been the determining question because the parentage had not been denied by him. As regards financial status, petitioner himself had produced his salary slip thereby showing his monthly income as Rs,22,072 per month. Even if deduction is made, petitioner takes home Rs,16,000 per month, therefore, the decretal amount neither appears to be exorbitant or disproportionate to his earning sources. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same accordingly. Leave to .
Leave to .
Cited by 2 cases
- Ayesha Hashmat Kamal and 2 Others vs Additional District Judge and 2 2023 LHC 5606, 2024 CLC 141
- SALEEM AKBAR KAYANI vs Dr. REHANA MANSHA KAYANI and 4 others 2016 YLR 2851