ZULQARNAIN KHAN vs Miss FARRAH SHUA and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the maintenance allowance awarded to the minor child of the petitioner. The Family Court initially awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month, which was reduced by the District Judge to Rs.1,000 per month. The petitioner challenged this reduction through a constitutional petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in affirming the maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000 per month. The Supreme Court held that no legal or factual infirmity existed in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the amount was neither unreasonable nor excessive given the inflation in the cost of living. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent factual determinations regarding maintenance allowances will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity, and petitions lacking a substantial question of law of general public importance merit dismissal.
- Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the award of maintenance allowance to the minor child?
- Does an award of Rs.1,000 per month as maintenance allowance for a minor constitute an unreasonable or excessive amount in view of inflation?
- Whether a petition against concurrent findings regarding maintenance allowance raises a substantial question of law of general public importance?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Sole question involved in this petition for leave to appeal is whether learned High Court was justified in affirming the award of Rs.1,000 per month by way of maintenance allowance to the minor child of the petitioner?
2. As a result of proceedings in a suit, Family Court awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000 per month in favour of the minor, which was impugned by the petitioner before the District Court.
District Judge, Mianwali, on re-consideration, reduced the amount from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs.1,000 per month. Petitioner, being still dissatisfied, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court where he has been non-suited.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and scanned the record. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the record, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Court and not disturbed by the High Court in the matter of award of maintenance allowance in favour of the minor. Even otherwise, with inflation in the cost of life amount fixed by the Courts below is neither unreasonable nor excessive. Furthermore, no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.