NASEEM MAI vs MALIK MUHAMMAD SHAH AALAM — 2026 PLD 122 SUPREME-COURT

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

NASEEM MAI VS MALIK MUHAMMAD SHAH AALAM. S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, future maintenance allowance and future marriage expenses---Prospective / future marriage expenses, grant of---Scope and limitations in Family Law jurisprudence---Facts in brevity were that the petitioners (daughters) filed a suit against respondent No. 1 (father) seeking recovery of maintenance allowance at Rs. 10,000/- per month each and future maintenance at the same rate, along with Rs. 2,000,000/- as marriage expenses, contending they were unmarried and their marriages would be arranged---The Family Court decreed Rs. 5,000/- per month each for the past and Rs. 10,000/- per month for the future with 10% annual increase, and Rs. 1,000,000/- as marriage expenses payable at the time of marriage---Respondent No. 1's (father) appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court, but his writ petition was partially accepted by the High Court, setting aside the decree to the extent of marriage expenses, thereafter being dissatisfied, the petitioners filed the present petition---Significant question for determination before the Supreme Court was as to "Whether a father could be compelled under the Family Courts Act, 1964 to pay prospective or future marriage expenses for his daughters when the claim of daughters was merely speculative and was founded solely on apprehensions"---Held: The Family Courts Act, 1964 recognized in section 5 read with its Schedule-I certain categories of claims including maintenance, dower, recovery of dowry articles, restitution of conjugal rights, jactitation of marriage etc. but not prospective marriage expenses, unless a concrete cause arose---Thus, entertaining such speculative claims could open a floodgate of hypothetical litigation, undermining the procedural discipline and judicial economy---A suit for marriage expenses could be preferred if such expenses were immediate, certain, and unjustly denied, especially if customary contributions, jahez or rukhsati costs, were refused at the time of an actual engagement or marriage---However, law did not create a statutory obligation on a father to bear advance or indefinite marriage expenses, especially when no marriage date was fixed, no engagement or preparation was underway, therefore, the claim was speculative and indeterminate in nature---In the present case, the petitioners had neither shown any arrangement for their marriages nor any evidence of finalized preparations---Their apprehension of financial need, though genuine and understandable, did not translate into a legal debt enforceable through court in the said circumstances---Despite the emotional and financial vulnerability daughters often face in such situations the law did not empower the Courts to direct payments for future and indeterminate events---The claim of the petitioners (daughters) as to marriage expenses, although based on understandable concerns, was premature and not maintainable, however, they (petitioners) were at liberty to seek appropriate legal recourse at a proper time when their marriages were to be fixed in future and in case of refusal of respondent No. 1 (father) to take responsibility of expenses of the same---No case for grant of leave was made out which was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

NASEEM MAI vs MALIK MUHAMMAD SHAH AALAM — 2026 PLD 122 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD