AMIR SOHAIL vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT S — 2023 CLC 161 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AMIR SOHAIL VS JUDGE FAMILY COURT S.10 & Sched.---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25---Minor/son filed suit for maintenance against the appellant/father and appellant filed suit for custody of minor against mother and grandmother of the minor---Appellant filed constitutional petition and High Court issued direction to the Family Court for expeditious disposal to the extent of guardianship matter pending before it---Appellant contended that High Court did not mention anything as to his prayer against past maintenance allowance of the minor which had been allowed for previous period of four years, two months and six days prior to filing of suit; that Court could not grant past maintenance allowance beyond three years period prior to the date of filing of suit for recovery of maintenance---Validity---Court may presume that judicial/official acts have been regularly performed, although such presumption is rebuttable---Appellant never objected to the passing of impugned order at the stage when the same had been dictated nor any objection to the same was raised by filing any review application before the judge to assert that consent had not been given for passing the said order---Impugned order was a consent order for the entire matter that was decided in Chambers, which could not be called in question through Intra-Court Appeal---Minor in plaint claimed that the appellant was earning more than Rs.50,000/- which claim was denied by the appellant---Maintenance was allowed from the date when the mother of the minor was divorced and the minor had since been living with her---Neither the respondent/minor nor the appellant led any cogent evidence relating to income/financial status of the appellant---Trial Court was justified to determine the quantum of maintenance allowance on the basis of tentative assessment of available record---Such assessment was a finding of fact which could not be ordinarily interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court unless shown to be suffering from some illegality, misreading/non-reading of record or suffering from some jurisdictional defect---Past maintenance allowance could be allowed for a period more than three years but not more than six years---Family Court had to adjust the interim maintenance allowance paid during the pendency of the suit according to the amount determined in the final decree---Intra Court Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

AMIR SOHAIL vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT S — 2023 CLC 161 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC