UMAR AKBAR ALI GHUMMAN vs Mst — 2025 PLD 388 ISLAMABAD

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

UMAR AKBAR ALI GHUMMAN VS Mst. MARIA JAVED CHEEMA Ss.7 & 17-a---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.9---Suit for recovery of maintenance filed by wife---Misuse of suits for restitution of conjugal rights to prejudice wife's maintenance claims deprecated by courts---Wife's entitlement to maintenance discussed---Principles of Mohammedan Law---applicability and relevance with regards to wife's entitlement to maintenance discussed---Right to maintenance remains intact during subsistence of marriage---Wife's refusal to live with the husband does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance---The core point for determination before the High Court was as to "whether the wife could be disentitled from the right to seek maintenance during subsistence of marriage on the basis of disobedience towards the husband"---Brief facts were that family court fixed interim maintenance for wife and two minor children---The petitioner (husband) through the Constitutional petition challenged the interim maintenance only to the extent of wife on the ground of her disobedience towards the petitioner (husband), hence, it was alleged that wife was not entitled to any maintenance until she joined the petitioner (husband) to perform and fulfil her matrimonial obligations and responsibilities---Held: The contention of the petitioner (husband) was not impressive at all, and rightfully so because it reeked of bigotry and patriarchy; a true reminder of archaic male chauvinism---Neither any conditions were placed on the wife's right to maintenance under S. 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, nor did the law intended to do the same---Multiple interpretations qua right of maintenance could neither be accepted nor any preconditions could be prescribed for a wife to be entitled to maintenance, who remained legally married nonetheless---No external conditions could be read into the provisions based on commentaries or treatises on Mohammedan Law---Similarly, no such conditions had been envisaged under S. 17-a of the Family Courts act, 1964, either---Therefore, the obligation of a husband to maintain his wife was clear and unambiguous---These provisions did not stipulate any preconditions for the wife's entitlement to maintenance during the subsistence of marriage, nor did they permit the importation of extraneous conditions derived from commentaries or treatises on Mohammedan Law---The statutory framework, thus, affirmed that a legally wedded wife was entitled to maintenance without the need to satisfy additional criteria not found within the law itself---Filing of suits for restitution of conjugal rights by husbands must not be used as a means to obstruct or undermine the wife's claim for dower or maintenance---It must not be used as a tactic to contest and/or frustrate legitimate claims for maintenance or dower---There was no cogent reason to set aside the impugned order to the extent challenged therein---The instant petition, being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

UMAR AKBAR ALI GHUMMAN vs Mst — 2025 PLD 388 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD