Nazir Ahmad vs Judge Family Court etc.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Case No: W.P. No.1132 of 2026 Nazir Ahmad VS Judge Family Court, Khairpur Tamewali etc.

S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary Proceeding Proceeding 03.03.2026 Mr. Muhammad Asif Mahmood Pirzada, Advocate for petitioner.

Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khairpur Tamewali whereby the suit instituted by respondents No.2 and 3 was decreed to the extent of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for each minor, payable from the date of institution of the suit, however, the claim pertaining to past maintenance allowance was declined. The suit insofar as respondent No.4/defendant No.1 was concerned stood dismissed.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the grandfather of respondents No.2 and 3 (minors) bears no legal obligation to maintain them as the primary responsibility squarely rests upon their father, respondent No.4/defendant No.1. Further argues that the liability of a grandfather arises only where the father is deceased or wholly incapacitated which is not the case here. Further avers that an earlier decree for maintenance had already been passed against respondent No.4, who has even undergone imprisonment pursuant to earlier proceedings, therefore, a subsequent suit against the present petitioner was not maintainable in the presence of the said decree.

3.Heard. Record perused.

4.It is an admitted position that respondent No.4/father of the minors has shifted to Saudi Arabia and is not maintaining his minor children. The minors, therefore, cannot be left at the mercy

of society or exposed to hardship particularly when their mother has demonstrated her inability to maintain them independently. The paramount consideration in matters relating to maintenance is the welfare and survival of the minors who constitute the most vulnerable segment of society.

5.From the statement of the petitioner, who appeared as DW-1 it emerges that he enjoys a sound financial position and owns Grain Grinding Machines (Aatta Chakkis). During cross- examination, he candidly admitted that he had contested earlier litigation regarding dowry articles on behalf of his son before both the learned trial court and the appellate court. He further acknowledged that he and his son were residing jointly, had engaged the same counsel and had filed a joint written statement in the previous proceedings. In that case he had also admitted ownership of two Grain Grinding Machines. The evidence on record thus establishes not only his financial capacity but also his close and continuing association with his son.

6.Where the father, though alive, has absented himself and failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor children and where the grandfather is financially sound and capable, the law does not allow a situation in which minors are left destitute. In such circumstances, the ascendant possessed of sufficient means cannot escape responsibility. The minors cannot be rendered helpless merely on account of the father’s deliberate avoidance.

7.It is significant to note that the maintenance so granted does not fall within the purview of Section 14(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (Amendment Act XI of 2015), which bars an appeal where the maintenance allowance does not exceed Rs.5,000/- per month. For ease of reference Section 14 of the Act ibid is reproduced below:-

“S. 14. Appeal.-[(1) Notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for the time being in force, a decision given or a decree passed by a Family Court shall be appealable-

(a)to the High Court, where the Family Court is presided over by a District Judge, an Additional District

Judge, or a person notified by Government to be of the rank and status of a District Judge or an Additional District Judge.]

(b)[to the District Court, in any other case.]

(2)No appeal shall lie from a decree by a Family Court-

(a)for dissolution of marriage, except in the case of dissolution for reasons specified in clause (d) of item (viii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939,

(b)for dower [or dowry] not exceeding rupees [thirty thousand];

(c)for maintenance of rupees [One thousand] or less per month. Punjab amendment:

Subsection (2) in clause (b), for the word "thirty thousand” the words "one hundred thousand" substituted, and (b) "one thousands” the words "five thousand" substituted by Family Courts (Amendment) Act 2015 (XI of 2015).

[(3) No appeal or revision shall lie against an interim order passed by a Family Court.

(4)The appellate Court referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal within a period of four months.]”

(Emphasis Supplied) From the bare reading of above reproduced section, it demonstrates that no appeal shall lie from a decree of a Family Court for maintenance of rupees five thousand or less per month. Furthermore, sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act ibid expressly prohibits any appeal against an interim order. The legislative intent is manifest; to protect weaker segments of society particularly women and children from protracted litigation and to ensure expeditious and final determination of modest maintenance claims.

8.Entertaining a constitutional petition in matters consciously excluded from the sphere of appeal by the legislature amounts to going against the intent and intention of the law- makers, who have deliberately curtailed appellate remedies in such cases to support minors and females. Filing and prosecuting constitutional petitions in cases which do not fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act ibid is a practice which deserves to be deprecated and discouraged. In the smooth administration of justice, no one can be permitted to create hindrance in the due course of law by adopting indirect methods to challenge decrees that have been rendered final by statutory command.

9.Courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction are always reluctant to interfere in decisions made under special statutes, particularly where no exceptional circumstances exist. Even otherwise, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to reappraise evidence or substitute its own findings unless a jurisdictional defect, patent illegality, material irregularity or manifest perversity is demonstrated. The learned Judge Family Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence granted a modest maintenance allowance of Rs.3,500/- per month to each minor. The amount awarded is modest and commensurate with the circumstances brought on record. No legal infirmity, jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice has been shown that would warrant interference with such determination.

10.The present petition appears to be an attempt to circumvent the legislative scheme and to prolong litigation in a matter concerning a meagre maintenance amount awarded to minors. Such attempts, if entertained, would defeat the object and wisdom of the legislature and undermine the protective framework envisaged for vulnerable litigants.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion and in the absence of any substantiated ground for interference, the present constitutional petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN)

JUDGE

Signed on

*Sadheer Ahmad*

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE