Saiqa & 2 others Vs Additional District Judge etc

Form No:HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026 Saiqa & two others. Versus Addl: District Judge & others. S. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of proceeding. proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. 08.10.2026. Mr. Muhammad Jamil Warraich, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Qaiser Mehmood Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents. Ms. Amber Qayyum, Advocate/Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Muhammad Farooq-e-Azam, Civil Judge/Research Officer, Lahore High Court, Lahore.

Through this writ petition, the petitioners, Saiqa and the minors namely, Saad Haider and Muhammad Zaid, have assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Sialkot, as well as the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, primarily on the question of maintenance allowance payable to the minors and the annual enhancement thereof, besides the adjudication of the claim for dowry articles to the extent of their alternate value of Rs.2,80,000/-.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the courts below have not appreciated the legal position despite the fact that it is an admitted position that the respondent, Zahid Iqbal, is a U.K citizen, presently residing in England, and is in a position to pay maintenance at a higher rate, as claimed by the minors.

3.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contends that though the respondent, Zahid Iqbal, is residing in the U.K., but he is not in a position to pay maintenance at the enhanced rate, as his monthly income is stated to be not more than 500/600 U.K. Pounds.

4.Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.Perusal of the record reflects that petitioner No.1, Saiqa, was married to respondent No.3, Zahid Iqbal, on 05.02.2010, and

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

petitioners No.2 and 3 were born from the said wedlock. The minors are presently in the custody of petitioner No.1. A suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles was instituted, and the marriage was subsequently dissolved pursuant to a decree of Khula. The learned Judge Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025, granted maintenance allowance to petitioner No.1 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from December, 2019, when she was allegedly stopped being provided maintenance, till the expiry of her Iddat period. The minors were held entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from December, 2019 till they attain majority or their custody changes, whichever occurs earlier. The claim for dowry articles was decreed to the extent of the articles allowed by the Court or their alternate value of Rs.2,80,000/-, after taking into consideration the year of marriage and the factor of wear and tear. Both the sides preferred appeals, which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2025. The learned appellate Court, however, directed that the annual increase of 10% in the maintenance allowance of the minors would be calculated after one year from the passing of the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025, whereas the alternate value of the dowry articles was maintained.

6.I have gone through the evidence available on record. It is not disputed that the petitioners resided in the United Kingdom with respondent No.3 and that, on 28.11.2019, petitioner No.1 along with the minors was separated from him and maintenance was thereafter allegedly withheld. The circumstances of petitioner No.1, who has been looking after the minors, are relevant to the determination of their needs. The fact that both minors are studying in school also indicates that their maintenance must be assessed in a manner that takes account of their upbringing and educational requirements. The obligation of a father to maintain his minor children is not discharged by making an assertion of limited income. At the same time, the needs of the minors, the financial

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

capacity and earning time, and the quantum of maintenance must be determined through a reasonable assessment potential of the father, the parties’ circumstances and the material available on record. Neither an unsupported claim of poverty nor an assumption of affluence can, by itself, form the basis of a judicial determination. The respondent has asserted that his monthly income does not exceed 500/600 U.K. Pounds. In examining this assertion, the fact that the parties resided together in the United Kingdom and that petitioner No.1 claims knowledge of the respondent’s working circumstances is a relevant consideration. The respondent’s residence in the United Kingdom, however, does not by itself establish his actual income. His asserted earning capacity must be assessed in conjunction with the evidence and the other circumstances of the case. In this context, a question arises as to whether the Court may consult reliable information available on an official government website while assessing the earning capacity of a litigant. The answer requires a distinction between taking judicial notice of an objectively ascertainable public fact and treating that fact as conclusive proof of a disputed matter concerning an individual. Article 111 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provides that a fact of which judicial notice is taken needs not be proved. Article 112(2) further enables the Court, in the matters contemplated therein, to resort to appropriate books or documents of reference. The scheme of these provisions recognizes that formal proof is not indispensable in every situation and that the Court may, where the nature of the matter justifies it, consult a reliable reference to ascertain an objectively verifiable fact. The discretion, however, must be exercised judicially and with due regard to the relevance, authenticity and reliability of the information consulted. Article 112(3) also makes it clear that the Court may require production of an appropriate reference document where necessary. In Wattan Party vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 697), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the circumstances in which judicial notice may be taken of newspaper

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

reports. Although the subject there was different, the decision underscores that material available in the public domain cannot be accepted indiscriminately merely because it has been published. In Liaqat Ali alias Liaqi vs. The State (2018 YLR 550), publicly accessible websites were consulted in relation to sunset times, and the Court considered the scope of judicial notice under Articles 111 and 112 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. These authorities support the proposition that a Court may consult a reliable public reference where appropriate; they do not dispense with the requirement of a rational connection between the information consulted and the conclusion to be drawn from it. An official government website stands on a different footing from an anonymous online statement or an unverified publication. Its contents may be consulted as an authoritative reference for the limited purpose of ascertaining what the relevant public authority officially publishes. Nevertheless, the expression “public domain” is not, by itself, a rule of evidence. The source must be identifiable and reliable, the information must be relevant to the matter in issue, and the Court must remain conscious of the limits of the inference that can legitimately be drawn from it. Where information obtained independently by the Court is to be used materially against a party, fairness requires that the source and its proposed use be disclosed and that the parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity to address the matter. The official website of the Government of the United Kingdom, namely https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage- rates, states that, with effect from 1 April 2026, the National Living Wage applicable to eligible workers aged 21 years and above is £12.71 per hour. The said rate is also reflected in the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 1 April 2026. The rate is, therefore, an objectively ascertainable matter supported by an official government source. The significance of this information must, however, be confined to its proper scope. The statutory rate establishes the minimum hourly remuneration legally prescribed for workers falling within the

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

relevant category; it does not establish that every person residing in the United Kingdom is employed, works a particular number of hours, or actually receives remuneration at that rate. The respondent’s age, employment status, working hours and the nature of his work are relevant to determining whether the prescribed rate applies to him. The Court cannot, merely from his citizenship or residence, presume all these matters in his favour or against him. For illustration, if an eligible worker is employed for eight paid hours per day on twenty-two working days in a month at £12.71 per hour, the resulting gross monthly amount would be £2,236.96. This is a mathematical illustration based on the stated assumptions and not a finding that the respondent actually earns that amount. The figure also represents gross remuneration and does not, without further material, establish the respondent’s disposable income. Accordingly, the information published by the Government of the United Kingdom may be taken into consideration as a relevant benchmark while examining the respondent’s assertion of income. It cannot, standing alone, be treated as conclusive proof that his monthly earnings are £2,236.96 or that his income in Pakistani currency necessarily falls within a particular range. In particular, the wage rate effective from April 2026 cannot, without further evidence, establish the respondent’s actual earnings during the earlier period commencing in November 2019. Its relevance is principally to the assessment of his present earning capacity, subject to the evidence and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the circumstances reflected in the record, including the parties’ residence in the United Kingdom, the respondent’s asserted working circumstances, the needs of the minors and the fact that petitioner No.1 has been bearing responsibility for their upbringing, I am of the view that the maintenance allowance requires reconsideration and enhancement. The amount must, however, remain a reasoned assessment of the needs of the minors and the respondent’s capacity, rather than a direct mathematical consequence of the minimum-wage rate. In the circumstances of

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

the present case, the maintenance allowance of the minors is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month per child.

7.The next question concerns the commencement of the annual enhancement. Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, as applicable in Punjab, empowers the Family Court to prescribe an annual increase in maintenance and provides for an automatic increase of 10% per annum where the Court does not prescribe one. The commencement and calculation of the increase must be determined in the light of the terms of the decree, the period for which maintenance has been awarded and the applicable law. The learned appellate Court directed that the annual increase would commence after one year from the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025. In the present case, the maintenance allowance of the minors was awarded from December 2019, when the respondent allegedly ceased providing maintenance. In view of the nature of the claim and the period for which maintenance has been awarded, the question of annual enhancement cannot be decided merely by reference to the date on which the decree was passed, without considering the period for which the minors remained without maintenance. The annual increase is, therefore, directed to be calculated from 28.11.2019, the date of separation relied upon in the present proceedings. The Executing Court shall calculate the arrears accordingly, ensuring that the annual enhancement is applied in the manner directed herein.

8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Muhammad Imran Baqir vs. Mst. Zarnain Arzoo and others (PLD 2026 SC 170) has reaffirmed that a father’s obligation to maintain his offspring survives the dissolution of marriage and is not diminished merely because the children remain in the custody of their mother. The Court further held that the determination of maintenance requires consideration of the reasonable needs of the child and the financial means of the father, and that a plea of financial incapacity must be substantiated by documentary evidence. Where a father asserts that his income is limited but fails to produce material such

Writ Petition No.7456 of 2026

as a salary slip or income statement to support that assertion, the Court is not bound to accept the plea merely on his statement. The judgment also recognizes that earning capacity, and not merely the income a person chooses to disclose, is a relevant consideration in determining his obligation towards his children. In the present case, therefore, the respondent’s assertion that he earns only 500/600 U.K. Pounds per month must be examined in the light of the available evidence, his working circumstances and his capacity to earn. The welfare and reasonable requirements of the minors cannot be subordinated to an unsubstantiated plea of financial incapacity, and the maintenance allowance must be fixed in a manner that fairly reflects both their needs and the respondent’s means.

9.For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. The maintenance allowance of the minors is enhanced as directed above, and the annual enhancement shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph-7 of this judgment. The judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, as maintained by the learned appellate Court, shall otherwise remain intact, including the determination of the alternate value of dowry articles at Rs.2,80,000/-, which has not been shown on the material presently under consideration to warrant interference. No order as to costs.

(Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) Judge

Approved for Reporting.

Judge Faiz