Syed Muhammad Taqi Raza Naqvi Vs Judge Family Court etc

'. fsi".

BLUE SLIP

HJD/ C-42 I /Reuised: under Act No.II of 1990)

I

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE MR,JUIITICD MUZAIUIru AKHI'AR S.TI/IBIN ..n, hl 'f'"_c, rSfi't1

Vers:,us

, \ t<l9re Y-r^: u"' V''J

":t l'n ('-' l'- Date of hearing: ? rr -r' ,. I '-l ,' lil -

(a)Judgmertt approued for reportinl':t u-- Yes ,l{o

I

cqlKrffICATE Certified that the judgment/ ort:l.er is based u.pon. or erLLutcial.e:; ,a Principle of law/decides a question c.1f latu, tuh.ich is of first irnltression/ d.istinguishes / ou er-ntle s / reuerse / extrtl eins a preuious cl e ci sicsr t .

r

I

JUDGE

Note:- (1) This stip is only to be user)t. when some a.ction if.tct be talcen, ,

(2)If the slrp is used., thte Re'ad.er must attach it tto the top o.f th.e first page of the judg1ment,

(s)Reader must ask the Jud.':7e writirtg the Judgrruerrt. tuhet.lrcr thtt Judgment is approued for reporting.

(4)Those directions wh.ich an'e not to be ttsecl. sLroulcl be cleletecl.

To be used bg I.T.

aludgment Upload of Name Website

Entry in Database Signafutre

ORDER SI.IEET

IN THE LAHORE HXGH COT]II.T, LAI.IOI{.II.

JU p-r c IAL p rtrl4,R'f M-II"IJT

W.P.No,673 of 2019 Syed M.th""rt*l Ta.i,,lk Naqvi VEfSLIS

Judge Farnily Court, etc.

()rder v,,ilh sig,nqtttra oJ',/t.tdgt:, unrl llrrl o.f' P ar I i,gs' cot n s c I. |, her tt tt cc(. ss il r v 10.01 .2019 Sh. Usman Karim-rrcl-Din, Aclvocate 1or petilioner'. Ms. Zarish llatimn, Assistant Attorney Gerir:r'al. On Court's call.

Mr. Muhammacl l\-rshad Manzoor','t A&C.Orr Coult's call.

M/s. Nasrullah l(hrtn Babar, Ch. Muhanrnracl N;rseel ancl Ms.UzmaRazzaq]ji|rarr'Ac|vocates/Amicrrscttriae' Througl, tliir; Constitr"rtional petition, petitiorrer who is defenclant in the suit trlccl by lcsponclcnts No.2 trl 5 for recovery of r:naintenance allowance, lras callocl in questionorderda1.rl:cl23.11.201Bpassedbyr.esporrc|etrt No.l/Judge ,llamil)r Court, Lahorc riherebV intcrim maintenance allowarnce of responclerrt No.? (wil'e o1'tlie petitioner) has bei:,rr lixecl lt thc nrtc ol'lt:i.fi(X)0/- pcr month.

2, The lenrned ,::ounsel lbr petitioner rclics ou Scctiou 17-Aof the Farnily Courts Act, 1964 ('Act') to argue that Judge Family Cr:nrrt coulcl pass orrJel lirr irrtcrirn maintenance allowi:nce only once, whiclr'lre lracl clone by fixing the ,.mainte:nance allowance ol' the minorsl Respondentsl Xo i| to 5 ('minoru') onr22.09.2018 ancl had no jurisdiction to subsequently pass ar1 orcler to l-rx the interim nlaintcnarrce allowance ol' the n

,AV

lV.P,No.673/2019

wife/respondent no, 2 on 23.11.2018, which was bat't'ecl by constructive res-.i udicata.

3.Hcarcl, recorcl perusecl,

4.The question fbr deternrittation belbre this Coult is whether after fixing; interirr trtaitttcuance of'thc mitrors the Judge Family Clourt was vestecl with tltc powcrs tct subsequently fix tlre irrterim rtrainlenilltoc allowatrr:c ol' the wife or the samri wonlcl be barrecJ by cottstructive t'es- judicata.

5.In order to cleterurine the alble-rek:t't'ecl qttestiott, reference to sectiorr 17-A of the Act rrray be rladc which is reproduced belovu:

'(17A, ,Suit tbr rnuinlenance.* (l) In a s,tril for maintenattce, the liumilst Clrnrrl sholl, on tlte rlule of the first crppearance tl'the clefbnclunl, .li.r inlerirt monthltt tnairttencrnce .fbr wifb or tr child ttntl iJ' llrc defendnnt fails to pet llte ntoinlenanc;c bt, .fittrrtccntl'r day of each nnnth, lhe deJbnca o/'thc de/bndunl :;hnll stand struclc off and the liomilS, CPurt sltull r{eclee the suit for mttinlenancu on the husl,,';; o.f'tn'crrttertt] irt the plaint ana' ot/rer supltot'tit'tg docttmertls ott rec'brc{ of the c'asc.

6.As per the nrandate ol' Section l7-A (sLrplr), the Farnily Court iti bouncl [o tlx n.ronthly irrtcrirn maintenance allowarnce of the wil'e ol a chilcl on thc lrrst date of appearance of the del'endant, ln the pt'o"sent oase the respondent No.il as wifr and respondeuts No.3 to 5 as minor children of lletitioner tiled a suit lbr rccovery of maintenance allou,ance against ltinr on 11.07.201E by stating that he earns Rs.80,000/- per tnonth artcl is liable

a W.P.No.6732019

i'j

to maintain them, which was oontestecl by the pctitioncr by filing written slatement. 'fhe learnecl l.r'iitl cout:t cln I rt.

22.09,2018 aller hearing the arguments ltxecl ttre interirrr maintenancei allou'irnce of lespouclcrtts No.3 ancl 4 (minors) at the rate of Rs.7000/- per tnonth each aud for respondent No.5 (lrninor) at the rate o[' Iis.6000/- per month, whereas nothirrg was ltlentiorrecJ about ittteritrt maintenance allovrance of t'espottclctrt No.2 (wil'e). Subsequently, on Oti.l1.2018 the matter was acl.ioLrr:necl to 19.11.2018 for personal appearatrce ol the parties lbr' l) t'{r- trial reconciliation ploceeclings ancl Ibr payntent of interim maintenanre allowance ol' th? tuitrot's, On 19.11 ,2018, respotrdent No.2 appenrecl irr thc cottt't atrcl got recorded her statement that she wlttrts to t'cconcile with the petitionel subject to paynrctrt of ttLtittteuattcc allowance to her; the petitioner also got lecorclccl his statement on the snme date that he wauts to recclncile with the responclent No. 2, whet'eulicr, tlrc lnlrttcl' wlls adjourned to 23.11.2018 fbr iurther pnrceetlings lrLrt orr the said date, petitioner" clid not appeltt in tlrc coirrt despite the fact that respondent No.2 renrainecl presrettt- in the court and alvaited lor petitioncr's arrival lbr reconciliation procr:edings lrom l I:00 a.rn. onwarcl till the closing tirte o1'the court; conseqlrenlly, the court ir"r the absence of the petitioner fixecl the intcriur maintenance allown.nce of responclerrt No.2 nt tlie rate ol Rs.8000/- per month and directecl the petitioner to ntal<e payment of the san're.

N

7.Although thr: learned counsel l"or petitioner sl.ates that non-passing of order relating'to grar'lt ()I tntenrl'l maintenance' allourance irr lavour of lesporrclcrit No.2 , i;;

W.P.No.673/2019 't:

/ ,n \ (wife) at the time of fixation ol' interimr rnaintenattce allowance of the tninors woulcl atncluttt to rclitstrl of thc same but I am nrrrf to agree with thc) i;aicl nr::'t inclirrecl 1o

argument of the pelitionet' for tfte ref]soll tftat it was tlrc duty of the CoLrrt to J'ix the irtterirtr rlorrtltly ttrlritttctrattcc allowance of the minor ancl the wil'o on the 1lr':;t datc ol' appearance of the pr:titioner/clel'errclant br.rt thc cctttt't while fixing the maintena.ltce allowance of the urinot'li clicl not consider and clecirJe the milttel' rclating to thc wif'c, conseqgently the Sarne corrlcl not be deetnecl tcl have lreerl l;, refused. Suffrce it t9 say that po;larty oal bc allciwecl to suffer for al'ty act or otnissiott of tfue collrt. liiven

I

t.

otherwise, a Fapril:/ Cor.rrt is colrpeterrt to acl6pt auy procedure ancl pasls any orcler ttl lcgr-rlatc its owll proceedings unless the salrre is lrarlocl tttrcler stlmc law and in case the c<lt-trt hacl not elrliet'passecl lttt ot'cler fixing interim maitrtenauce allowatroe lor the wile, it retained the jurisclir.:tiorr to pass the sricl orclcr' lntet' ott as the said procedure rvas not barrecl r.tucler tlie law. It is the ease of the petit:i,oner tliat the interinr r11ainterrarlce allowance of the ra,ile had been inrplieclly relirsecl at the time of fixation of iinterirl maintenance allowancc of thc minors but the saicl asseltiorr is not st"tpportccl by the record as the orclel' clatccl 22.09.2018 is silcnt ltroLtt thc case of the wili:, vrftich wus trot cgtrsiclerccl at a[[ at that stage and consequr;:ltly it calrnot be lrelcl that the cottrt had refused to fix :i:nterim t'uaintettilnce allowance lbr the wife. Besides, constl'Llctive resitrtlic:cttct bars arry clairl from being raised in a later ploceeclings'il'tlic :;ni<.1 clritn ought to have been raised ancl clecidecl in all ealliet' proceedings,,bllt wl,*s not raisecl relielt was

W.P.No.6732019

' . I :.j

allowed; whereas, irr the pl'esent cnse, thc nutlLcr wi.ls still rr .,t ,l pending with the Farnily Court who hacl nol expt'cssccl its opinion about talcing the saicl clLtitti itito cottsiclellrtioli. Even otherwise, questiot-r of nraintetlartce is a recLtrt'itig callse of action, wliicli can be raise<l ot1 every srtccessit,e occasion when rieht to stte arises atrcl irttc.rittt maintenance allowance is to be fixecl on tuotttltly btrsis, therefore, the argurnent o1'orclcr clatecl 23.1l'.20lB bcing barred by construr:tive res jucliccrlcr is nriscottceived. Besides, mandate of Sectiou l7-A o{' the Act clircctirrg the court to pass orclcr ol' itrtcriLn niorrthly tnnirttcttltttce allowance in favour of wil'e or minor on the lLl'st clate of appearance oJ'the pr:titioner'/clcfcuclnnt clttrs not clivest the court of power arrcl-ir,rriscliction to pass suclt tttt ot'clcr tttt a subsequent date an,cl use oIrvclrd "of" betweett "wilb" ot' "child" in the afbrt: t'eferrecl Section ar"tthot'izes the cottrt to pass separate ortlers at any stage relating to ljxation o[' interim montlily rn;"iintenauce allowance {or thc uril'e ancl the child. Consequ,rntly it is helcl thai fixati on ol'intcrim maintenance'allow;rnce o1'the minors ord oLt c clnte lvrlr-rld l" .f not debar the cottrt fionr lixing irrterlm l11it l lltena rlce allowance of the wile on sr"tbsecluetrt date or vic:c verstr.

8.The petitiorr,ar also clrallcngcs tl're cluautrttrt of interim maintenanr::e allowatrce llxccl by the court. 'fltc said order is an inl,r:rlocutory orcler against rvhioh irppcirl is not available to petitionet' ancl Corrstitutior-ral petition filed before this'Cc,uLt cannot Lrc tlcatecl as its substitute unless some ill,:gality or en'oneoLts exorcise of, jurisdiction is pointed out wlrich has not*been estirLrlishecl in the instant case. Besicles, the tinte lixctl irt ortlcr tlntecl 23.11 2018 ,'', fbr paynrent of interirn tttaitrtettrtrce

lV,P.No.673/2019 -:6:-

allowance had alslo expired before the petitioner approached this (lourl in ConstitLrtional lretition, It

theretbre, it would not be appropriate to corrtlent on merits of the case lest tlie clecision of the trial court be prejudiced on that acsoctrtt. CottseclLrcntly, this petil.ion against interint orclet'to tlrat extent is not rlairttrinllble.

9.For what hasl been cliscussecl above, this pctiliorr being devoid of any merit is accolclingly clisnrissc<|.

(MUTZAMIL Al{r-l"tAR Sl lAl}tR)

JUDC II

Anproveil for reporting