Muhammad Shariq (Petitioner) VS Mst. Mehwish Hanif & another (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 Muhammad Shariq

Versus Mst. Mahwish Hanif & another

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)

Date of Hearing: 21.05.2026.

Date of Order: 17.08.2026.

Date of announcement: 24.08.2026.

Mr. Syed Muhammad Abid Ali Qadri, Advocate for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 Mst. Mehwish Hanif present in person.

ORDER

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J: Through the instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the legality and propriety of the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned 12th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi South, whereby Family Appeal No.20 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned XIX Family Judge, Karachi South, in Family Suit No.540 of 2023 were maintained.

2.Briefly stated, respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted Family Suit No.540 of 2023 seeking dissolution of marriage through Khula, recovery

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARA

of dowry articles or their alternate value, recovery of past maintenance for herself, past and future maintenance for the minor son with annual C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 enhancement, delivery and medical expenses and other ancillary reliefs. It was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.01.2015 against dower of Rs.5,000/-, which remained unpaid, and f.

Muhammad Shariq out of the wedlock one son was born. It was further averred that at the Versus time of rukhsati her parents had provided dowry articles worth approximately Rs.600,000/-,Mst. Mahwish which remainedHanif & custody in the anotherof the petitioner. She alleged that the petitioner neglected to maintain her,

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

subjected her to ill-treatment and ultimately left her at her parental home in July, 2022. It was further asserted that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage and possessed sufficient financial means, Date of Hearing: 21.05.2026.

Date of Order: 17.08.2026.

Page 2 of 6 C.P.No.S-307 of 2026

including employment as a lecturer, ownership of an academy and rental income.

3.The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, already denying the allegations. He asserted that the respondent had articles were taken some of the dowry articles while the remaining medical available for return. He further contended that the delivery and already expenses had been borne by him, that the gold ornaments were salary was only in possession of respondent No.1, and that his monthly paid Rs.26,000/-. It was further pleaded that he had continuously expressed maintenance through bank transactions and cash and willingness to resume cohabitation with respondent No. 1 .

Family

4.After failure of reconciliation proceedings, the learned way of Court passed preliminary decree dissolving the marriage by Thereafter, issues Khula and fixed interim maintenance for the minor. maintenance, were framed regarding entitlement to dowry articles, delivery and medical expenses and consequential relief.

evidence and

5.Both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence, the were duly cross-examined. Upon appreciation of the respondent learned Family Judge decreed the suit partially by awarding from October, No.1 maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month minor at the rate of 2022 till expiry of Iddat period, maintenance for the legal Rs.20,000/ - per month with effect from October, 2022 till annually entitlement with annual enhancement of 10%, Rs.30,000/- depreciated value of towards books and uniform of the minor, alternate ornaments)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KAR

dowry articles amounting to Rs.120,000/ - (excluding gold and medical expenses amounting to Rs.78,356/ C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred Family Appeal No.20 Appellate Court vide of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned Muhammad Shariq by the Judgment dated 25.02.2026 after affirming the findings recorded learned Family Court.

Versus

A410 7.

Mst. Mahwish Hanif & another Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts DATE perspective. It was

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDG

below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true maintenance argued that respondent No.1 herself admitted receipt of paying amounting to Rs.49,500/- and the petitioner had been regularly Date ofpursuant maintenance Hearing: to interim orders. It was further submitted that his monthly the petitioner had established through salary slip that Rs.26,000/ -, whereas respondent No.1 utterly failed Date income wasof Order:

merely 17.08.2026.

Date of announcement: 24.08.2026.

month. It to prove her allegation that he was earning Rs.350,000/- per was further argued that the award of maintenance, annual educational expenses, alternate value of dowry articles and medical expenses is excessive, arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that both Courts below ignored material contradictions regarding dowry articles and wrongly drew adverse inference against the petitioner. He lastly submitted that the concurrent judgments suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

8.Conversely, respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgments and submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently appreciated the entire evidence in accordance with law and recorded findings of fact after proper evaluation of the material available on record. It was argued that no jurisdictional defect, illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner so as to justify interference under Article 199 of the Constitution.

considerable

9.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully examined the record and have also gone through the impugned judgments.

10.Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be advantageous to reiterate the settled principles regulating the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is by now well settled that Article 199 of the Constitution does not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the High Court. Constitutional jurisdiction is supervisory in

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KAR

nature and can only be exercised where the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional defect, patent illegality, and procedural impropriety, C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 violation of law, perversity or misreading/non reading of material , evidence. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent Courts are unless shown Muhammad ordinarily immune from interference to be arbitrary, Shariq z# capricious or based upon no evidence. Versus Mst. Mahwish Hanif & another

11.The principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to the quantum maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. The record of DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE reflects that although the petitioner asserted that his monthly salary was Rs.26,000/-, the only document produced in support thereof was a handwritten salary slip. During cross-examination, the petitioner Date of Hearing: 21.05.2026.

candidly admitted that the salary slip was not computerized and further despite receiving salary through his bank account, he had Datethat admitted of Order: 17.08.2026.

Date of announcement: 24.08.2026.

not produced any bank statement before the Court. He also failed to examine any representative of his alleged employer or any independent witness to substantiate his asserted income.

12.It is now firmly settled law that in matters concerning maintenance, the husband is under a legal obligation to disclose his true present and past earnings and, where he deliberately withholds the best available evidence regarding his income, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The learned Family Court, while relying upon the dictum laid down in PLD 2018 SC 819, rightly concluded that the petitioner had concealed his actual financial status. The learned Appellate Court independently examined the same aspect and concurred with the said finding after assigning cogent reasons. No illegality has been pointed out in such reasoning.

13.It is equally settled that maintenance is not to be determined merely on the basis of the salary asserted by the husband but also with reference to his overall .financial capacity, social status, standard of living and the reasonable requirements of the wife and minor child. The Court is required to ensure that the wife and child are maintained in a manner commensurate with the status enjoyed by the husband. In the prevailing economic circumstances, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed excessive or unconscionable, particularly when the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of candidly disclosing his financial resources.

14.The objection regarding annual educational expenses of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARAC

Rs.30,000/- for books and uniform is equally misconceived. The record establishes that the minor is a school-going child. Educational expenses C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 are an integral component of maintenance, and the amount awarded by the learned Family Court appears to be reasonable and fully justified in r the prevailing circumstances. NoMuhammad Shariq legal infirmity is found in such 4 /' direction. Versus Mst. Mahwish Hanif & another 1 5. So far as the alternate value of dowry articles is concerned, both the DATE ORDERexamined Courts below have thoroughly WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s the evidence produced by the parties. The learned Family Court declined the claim relating to gold ornaments after finding the receipts unreliable and unsupported by Date ofevidence, independent Hearing: 21.05.2026.

thereby demonstrating impartial appreciation of the evidence. However, regarding the remaining dowry articles, the Date of Order: 17.08.2026.

petitioner failed to establish by any reliable evidence that respondent No.1Date had of announcement:

already 24.08.2026.

removed the articles from the matrimonial home.

Mr. Syed Muhammad Abid Ali Qadri, Advocate for Petitioner.

C.P.No.5-307 of 2026 Page 5 of 6

Neither the petitioner neither examined any independent witness nor disclosed the particulars of the alleged occasion on which such articles were taken away. On the contrary, the learned Family Court assessed only the depreciated value of commonly used household articles and awarded merely Rs. 120,000/- against the original claim of Rs.600,000/-. The learned Appellate Court has affirmed these findings after proper discussion. Such concurrent findings, based upon evidence, cannot be re-opened in constitutional jurisdiction.

16.Likewise, with regard to medical and delivery expenses, respondent No.1 produced documentary evidence in the shape of medical bills and receipts. Although the petitioner alleged that he had incurred such expenses, he failed to establish by convincing evidence that the bills produced by respondent No.1 had already been paid by him. The learned Family Court awarded only the amount duly supported through documentary evidence, namely Rs.78,356/-, and not the entire amount claimed in the plaint. Such finding is also based upon appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

17.Learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly argued that respondent No.1 had failed to prove the allegation that the petitioner was earning Rs.350,000/ - per month. This contention, however, loses significance because neither of the Courts below accepted such assertion as proved. Rather, both Courts independently examined the evidence produced by the petitioner himself and concluded that he had failed to disclose his actual earnings. The maintenance awarded was

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARAC

therefore not based upon the alleged income of Rs.350,000/- but upon the adverse inference legitimately drawn from the petitioner's deliberate C.P.No.S-307 of 2026 non-disclosure of his financial status.

18.Muhammad It is also pertinent to observe Shariq that the learned Family Court has and granted only such relief 'carefully evaluated every issue separatelyVersus Mst.The as was supported by evidence. Mahwish Hanif gold claim regarding ornaments was & another declined; the claim regarding dowry was substantially reduced by DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s awarding only depreciated value; the claim regarding medical expenses was confined to the proved amount; and maintenance was fixed after considering all attending circumstances. The learned Appellate Court independently reassessed the entire material and concurred with the Date of Hearing: 21.05.2026.

findings of the learned Family Court by assigning sound and convincing Date of Order: 17.08.2026.

Date of announcement: 24.08.2026.

reasons. Thus, both the judgments are well-reasoned speaking judgments.

19.No instance of misreading or non-reading of material evidence has been demonstrated before this Court. Likewise, no jurisdictional defect, procedural illegality, violation of any mandatory provision of law or perversity in appreciation of evidence has been pointed out. The submissions advanced by the petitioner merely invite this Court to reappraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusions for those concurrently recorded by the Courts below. Such exercise is clearly beyond the scope of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

20.It is a settled proposition of law that concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent Courts, particularly Family Courts, cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction merely because another view may also be possible. Unless such findings are shown to be wholly perverse, arbitrary, based upon no evidence or suffering from patent illegality, interference is not warranted.

21.For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned XIX Family Judge, Karachi South, as well as the appellate Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned 12th Additional District 86 Sessions Judge, Karachi South, are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. The petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

22.Consequently, this Constitutional Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court and the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Judge are hereby maintained.

16" A vi OLI CA-91 V-t-

1-4-rlt4"1-2 _t-i

P -LaGLA-1 t4 -C,‘ b- 1 PAAA. Yr