2021 CLC 561

 

CASE TITLE: 

SHAH MAQSOOD (PETITIONER)

 VS

 KHAIR-UN-NISA AND 2 OTHERS (RESPONDENT)

Constitution Petition No 1128 of 2019.

 Decided on 13thJuly, 2020

Before:

Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Rozi Khan 

FACTS:

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 got married on 5thOctober 2017.

Marriage consideration were ;

•Rs300,000/-as prompt dower.

•Rs 200,000/-as deffered dower.

•Jewellery given to her (Respondent No 1) at the time of rukhsati.

Relation become strained and Respondent number 1 took refuge at home of her parents.

At home of her parents respondent number one gave a birth to a girl named “shammah” 

Respondent No 1 after leaving petitioner house filed a suit for maintenance and return of dowry articles. 

Petitioner failed to provide maintenance to Respondent No 1 and her daughter. 

Resultantly the Respondent No 1 filed aforesaid family suit. 

Notice was issued to the petitioner 

He (petitioner) deny the claim of respondent No 1. 

ISSUE FRAMED:  

After denying the claim of Respondent No 1 by the petitioner the learned trail court formed issues. 

Application under section 17.A of the Act: 

Meanwhile Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 17A of west Pakistan family court act 1964, for interim Maintenance of herself  and her daughter. 

ARGUMENTS: 

➢ The application was contested by the petitioner. 

➢ Arguments by both counsels were heard  

➢ Application was accepted by trail court vide order dated 15th march 2019. 

➢ Maintenance allowance to respondent No 1/wife RS 10,000 per month. 

➢ Maintenance allowance to daughter is RS 8,000 per month. 

➢ Maternity expenditure at the birth of baby RS 15,000 

➢ Past maintenance allowance from the shifting of house by wife and from birth of baby. ➢ Petitioner failed to deposit maintenance  allowance on various dates of hearing.  

➢ Under these circumstances the right of the petitioner was struck up and decree is passed in favour of Respondent No 1. 

APPEAL: 

➢ Petitioner against the judgment of trail court filed an appeal under section 14 of Act before learned Additional District Judge, Noshki. 

➢ But the same was dismissed on 18th September, 2019 

JUDGEMENT BY HIGH COURT:

➢ After dismissal of appeal from Additional district Judge, hence this petition was filed. 

➢ High Court in writ jurisdiction as bound to proceed under maxim;                                           “He who seek equity must do equity”. 

➢ The conduct of petitioner was not good with the court and also has behavior was not good according to the concern law. 

➢ On 7/7/2020  court has no option but to decide  petition by available record. 

➢ The trail court rightly passed the decree against petitioner under section 17-A of the Act. 

➢ Petition said that the parties did compromise but on 7/7/2020, the counsel of respondent said, no compromise is affected between parties. 

➢ Hence the petition was dismissed and no relief is granted to the petitioner. 

Citation used in judgment: 

❖ Manzoor Hussain VS Zulfiqar Ali (1983 SCMR 137) 

❖ Abdul wahid khan VS Custodin of Evacuee property (1966 Quetta25) 

❖ Muhammad Arif VS Uzma Afzal (2011 SCMR 374)