Abdul Maroof Vs Abdul Sudais and others

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT ABBOTTABAD

BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT SHEET

WP No. 370-A/2025 Date of hearing 16.03.2026.

Petitioner/s (Abdul Maroof) by Mr. Adeel Ahmed Khan, Advocate.

Respondent/s (Abdul Sudais and others) Mr. Naeem Iqbal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

SYED MUDASSER AMEER, J. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner assails the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Mansehra, whereby Revision Petition No.32 filed by him was dismissed and the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court-I, Mansehra was upheld.

2.The concise facts are these. Respondents No.1 and 2 had instituted Suit No.253/FC of 2022 seeking possession of immovable property measuring 5 marlas situated in Mouza Sanday Sar, Tehsil and District Mansehra. They also sought recovery of Rs.100,000/- as dower, recovery of gold ornaments, maintenance allowance and return

of dowry articles. The suit was partly decreed by the learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2018.

3.Petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2, along with their mother, preferred an appeal which was partially modified by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2019.

4.Execution proceedings were thereafter initiated for enforcement of the decree. During the pendency of execution, the parties entered into a compromise. Subsequently, Abdul Shakoor and others filed a review petition on 17.09.2022, which was accepted vide order dated 06.04.2023.

5.The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C.

which was dismissed. The petition directed against order dated 06.04.2023 was also dismissed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 24.02.2024.

A revision petition filed before the learned Additional District Judge-V, Mansehra met the same fate vide judgment dated 19.11.2024. Hence, this petition.

6.Heard. Record perused.

7.The record shows that the respondents had originally instituted the suit seeking possession of five marlas property along with dower, maintenance and other allied reliefs. The suit was partly decreed on 30.10.2018. Thereafter, the decree-holders initiated execution proceedings on 10.02.2020 for enforcement of the decree. During those proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise whereby Rs.250,000/- along with land measuring 04 marlas was agreed to be given in lieu of dower and maintenance in terms of the compromise deed dated 19.02.2020.

8.It is also borne out from the record that under the decree dated 30.10.2018, the minors were held entitled to monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per head with annual increase of

9.Subsequently, the minors through their mother instituted a review petition which was accepted ex parte. Against that order the present petitioner invoked the remedy under section 12(2)

C.P.C.

10.The petitioner attempted to argue that in separate proceedings for dissolution of marriage an incorrect address had been deliberately furnished

in order to keep him out of the litigation and that the order dated 06.04.2023 had been procured behind his back. However, the record does not support such allegations. The addresses appearing in the relevant proceedings were neither shown to be incorrect nor contradictory. The plea of fraud and concealment, therefore, remained unsubstantiated.

11.Another aspect of the matter deserves emphasis. Under the compromise dated 19.02.2020, respondent Mst. Nasreen Bibi purportedly waived or settled the claim relating to maintenance of the minor children.

12.Such waiver has no legal sanctity. The right of maintenance does not belong to the mother. It belongs to the minor children themselves. The father’s obligation to maintain his children is both legal and moral. It continues so long as they remain minors. No private arrangement between the spouses can extinguish that obligation. Nor can the mother barter away the children’s entitlement in a compromise.

13.The Courts, in matters concerning minors, act as guardians of their welfare. Any compromise affecting the rights of minors must

therefore withstand judicial scrutiny and must demonstrably serve their welfare. If it does not, the Court cannot lend it approval.

14.In Mst. Nasim Khatoon and others v.

Syed Irshad Hussain and others (1991 MLD 1321), the Lahore High Court held that a compromise entered into by the mother on behalf of minor children cannot render their decree for maintenance ineffective and cannot bar their claim for maintenance for subsequent periods. The Court emphasized that the salutary principle embodied in Order XXXII Rule 7, C.P.C., requiring judicial scrutiny of compromises involving minors, cannot be ignored.

15.The same principle was reiterated in Rafaqat Hussain v. Asifa Altaf and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 194), where it was held that a father cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his minor child through a compromise with the mother, as the mother has no authority to waive the independent right of the child to maintenance.

16.Viewed in the light of these settled principles, the learned Courts below rightly concluded that the compromise could not operate

to extinguish the legally recognized right of the minors to maintenance under the decree.

17.It is also well settled that the scope of interference under Article 199 of the Constitution in family matters is limited. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless the same suffer from jurisdictional defect, mala fide exercise of power or violation of law. Reference in this regard may be made to Muhammad Shakeel v. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad (PLD 2025 SC 572), Amjad Khan v. Muhammad Irshad (deceased) through LRs (2020 SCMR 2155), Chief Executive MEPCO v. Muhammad Fazil (2019 SCMR 919) and Chairman NAB v. Muhammad Usman (PLD

2018 SC 28).

18.In the present case, no jurisdictional defect, perversity, misreading or non-reading of evidence has been demonstrated. The conclusions drawn by the Courts below are fully supported by the record and consistent with the governing legal principles.

19.Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court call for no interference.

The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Announced.

(Tahir CS)

JUDGE