Mst. Sadaf Rasheed D/o Ahmed Rasheed (Petitioner) VS Faisal and another (Respondent)

T IIAC

:" os C.p No.S- 819 of 2020

Mst. Sadaf Rashld

Vs.

1- Faisal

2- Additlorral District & Sessions Judge-tX (MCAC)

Karachi east

TIIGI I COI.JI{'I' OII SINDI,I

Mr. Justice Mohanrmad l(arim l(han Agha

Dntes of hearing : 06-08-2024

Decided on 06-08-2024

(a)Jr"rdgment apploved fol Reporling 1'es

CERTIFICATE.

Certified that the jr:dgment {'/Order is based upon or enunciates a principle of larv */decides a question of Iaw wliich is of fir'st impression/distinguisl'res/. Over-rules/ revelses/explains a previous decision,

* Stril<e out whichever is not applicable.

NO'l-E: - (i) This slip is only to be usecl '"vhen soure action is to be takcn'

(ii)If the slip is uscd, the lteader n'iust attach it to the top of thc tiLst page of the judgnient,

(iii)Reacler nrust ask the Judge u,rititrg the Judgment n'ltethcr the Jttdgurent is approvecl lol Lcporting.

(iv)Those clirectiols lvhicfu are not to be used should be deletecl'

I

F ob

IN TI{tr HI URT OF SIN DI.I AT KARACT{I.

florrstitutional lrctitio,, Nuf-

n020.

fTcrrr:t-tlrd r:n L? 1to')'.',>-*

I\4s1. Saclal'l{aslffl D/o Alunccl I{aslr!8, ,r.r:.: A00ltl (Wnt).

N4uslirrr, Atlrrlt, ll/o llorrsc rrt pkrl N,. l4(r. (irourttl l;loor. l{iglrt I}ortion. C,lt & l}ilrar. CllS. llloclt 7 ct tl. l(urlciri, PL'l'l'l IONI.ilr

VERSUS

1.Faisal Sio Ghulam Muhammad Abdul Chani, Muslim, Adult, lVo l-louse No.l, Shuaib Manzil, Memon Society, fa1,35 Ali Road, I(arachi.

2.Additional District & Sessiotts Juclge-IX (MCAC), Karachi East, I(arachi. ..... RESPONDENTS

CON STITUTI OI{AL PETITION

UNDEIT. AR CL E 19 9 OF THB CONS UTION OF

ISLAMTC RBPUBLIC O F I'AKISTAN, 1973.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Impugned Judgment datecj 01 - I I -2019 and Dect'ee dated 07- I I '2019, passcd by Lear:ned IX-r\dditional District & Sessions Judge/lvlodel Cir,'il Appellate Court, District East I(arachi in lraniily Appeal No. 17212018, Re. Faisal V/S Mst. Sadaf Rasliid, rvhereby modified the Judgrnenl & Decrec dat.ccl 25-09-2018, passecl by the learned V- Ciivl & Family Juclge, liast at l(arachi in Farnily Suit No.93912014. and rnodified thc Judgmcnt and Decrce in above suit. 'fhe petitioner'

rnost respectfully 1cl pray thal this I [onotrrable Court tnay bc plcased to seL-a-siclc thc Impugnccl Juclgrnenl. dated 0l-l l-2019 and I)ecrce dated 07-ll-2019, passctl by rcsltouclcnt No.2, l.earned lX- Additional District & Sessions Jrrdge/Model Civil Appellate Court,

\ t 0,+ '1, C (c S rr.pV n^c-."r.I a-v\,ilr a*G^^sL $^ t

J1 '5; \

I D

CHI

IN THE IG CO

CP s-8 19 of 2020 o F JU Ga DATE o RD D R WITFI SI G Direction For orders as to maintainabilitv o6.o8.2024 Petitioner' Mr. Ashfaq Ahmecl, Aclvocal"c for the for Respondent Mr. Naeetn Al<htar o'"*""' navocate No.1.

Mr. Iraheem I-lussaiu, D'P'G' Addl' A'G' Mr. Shehr eya, qu'i-,'&lrshacl Hussain'

MUHAMMADKARIMKHANAGHA,J,,ThePlaintiffsandDefendant in the had filed suit for dissolution of marriage and maintenance in Family suit court of VTH Civil & Family Judge, East, Karachi the marriage No.939/2014 and ,id. tt" judgment dated 25'Og'2O18 was dissolved and issue No'3 maintenance of the Plaintiff was

ordered as under:- the sutit of the "In view of the above circumstances' order jf*rrtiff is clecreecl accordingly with no as to cost' The marrirg. ;f th" parties ii-dissolved by way of khula' of the defend"rt iu directed to deposit the maintenance thePlaintiffNo.2attherateofRs.So0O/-permonth fromFebruary2ot3tiltherlegalentitlementwith irr"r"r"" of 106/o per annum with the Nazir of this court. ihe pef"ndant ls also directed to deposit the iddat p"iioa maintenance of the Plaintiff No. L at the rate of i?s.3OO0/- per month i'e' Rs'9000/-'"

The appellant/Defendant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order filed an appeal in the Court of IXth Addl. District & Session Judge (MCAC) Karachi East, Family Appeal No.L72l2Ol8 for reduction in the amount of maintenance which was ordered to be paid. However, after hearing the parties, vide judgment dated O 1. 1 1 .2019 the amBunt of maintenance was reduced as under:- ,,Keeping in view of above discussion in point No.1, I have come to the conclusion that th; impugned judgment and decree do not syffel from any itiegltiry and sarrre is hereby maintainecl to the extent of rnaintenance awarded ro the respondent No.1/rnother of IDDAT period E, of Rs.S,000/_ lnupees-'Three 'rhousand) per month, However, mrint"na.r'-"e to the respondent No.2iminor/BaUV ^-2..*.1 iwarded modified/reduced up ro ns.s,ocioT:-'t*li#.' is Five

,,,r:513iL

Thousand) per month instead of Rs.g,000/_ (Rupees Eight Thousand) since the date of hling of suit dated 17.O4.2O14 till her legal entitlement with 157o annual increment in future. The judgment of learned trial Court is accordingly moclified. Hence, the instant family appeal stands disposed of in above terms' Parties shall bcar thcir own costs. Let the decree be prepared accordingly.,,

The RespondCnt/Petitioncr has approached this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction in orclcr to appeal judgment dated 01.1L2OL} rvhereby the maintenance awarded to her was reduced' At the very outset i[ needs to be pointed out that the Family Courts Act, 1964 is an Act, which as found by the Supreme Court is a self contained and composite Act where and the Court is at liberqy to pass any appropriate order as it deems fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case which allows a single right of appeal under the Family Courts Act, L964 and no further appeal under the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of .drif Fareed..Vs.. Bibi Sara QA% SCMR 413 and M. Hamad Hassan ..Vs.. Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434).

As such this Court can only hear such appeals in its constitutional 'b il) jurisdictionJvery exceptional circumstances. In this case there is no exceptional circumstances as in the impugned judgment dated O 1.1 1 .2OLg the reasoning for the judgment has been fully explained at paragraph-L2, Furthermore, it is not possible for this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to go into the facts of the case to determine what should be the correct and appropriate amount for maintenance.

This being the case the constitutional petition is clismissed as being not maintainable and judgment dated 01.11.2019 is upheld. petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Sfi{ 6b l ob a-'1