MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA vs SHEHNAZ AKHTAR ZAHOOR AHMED — 2026 PLD 308 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.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA VS SHEHNAZ AKHTAR ZAHOOR AHMED. S. 5, Sched.---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 23 & First Sched., Art. 120---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Suit for recovery of past/retrospective maintenance---Entitlement---Unpaid past maintenance constituting continuing wrong thereby providing fresh cause of action for wife to bring the claim---Scope---Brief facts were that the respondent/wife married the appellant/husband and filed a suit for recovery of maintenance, claiming that the appellant had not provided financial support for several years---Family court decreed maintenance from June 2004 onward and the appellate court restricted it to the period from filing of the suit, whereas the High Court restored the family court's decree---Pivotal issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was the "extent of the period for which a neglected wife could claim maintenance, concentrating on the maximum retrospective period that the Court could consider when deciding such claims"---Held: Evidence in the present case indicated that the appellant's refusal to pay maintenance occurred within six years prior to the filing of the suit, a fact that was duly recounted in the plaint---As a result, the respondent's suit was filed within the permissible timeframe established by law---Moreover, due to unpaid past maintenance the cause of action effectively persisted month by month thereby constituting "continuing wrong" providing fresh cause of action with each passing month---It was argued that the appellant was willing to pay for past maintenance obligations but insisted that he would not cover any amounts due for the period beyond six years---This argument revealed the appellant's desire to abandon the respondent, potentially leaving her with deep emotional scars---By attempting to leverage legal technicalities to evade his obligations, he revealed a troubling disregard for his responsibilities---The arrears of maintenance were, in essence, a debt owed by the husband (the appellant) to his wife (the respondent)---The law clearly provided that he must fulfil his duty to support her, thus he remained liable for the maintenance owed for the past periods---Just because a substantial amount of time had passed, specifically, six years, did not absolve him of the financial responsibilities he owed to his wife---As the respondent's suit was timely, she was entitled to collect past maintenance for the period delineated in her plaint and substantiated by evidence---In cases concerning maintenance allowances, wife's cause of action would arise the moment her husband began to neglect his duty to support her---Therefore, any argument asserting that wife's delays in approaching the court would exempt the husband from liability for past maintenance would lack both reason and logic---The time elapsed prior to the wife's court action would still be taken into account when determining the duration for which maintenance was owed---Under Islamic law, a wife would be only required to demonstrate that her husband had neglected her for a specific period and has not provided the maintenance to which she is entitled, without any fault on her part---If it would be ascertained that the husband had failed in his duty to support her, he would become liable not only for future maintenance but also for any past due amounts, reflecting the period during which she was deprived of financial support---The law served as a protective shield for the vulnerable, ensuring that the husband (the appellant) was held accountable for his every cunning stratagem---Even if he attempted to obscure his responsibilities behind a facade of legal jargon, the consequences for his obstinate actions would inevitably come to light---Therefore, the judgment delivered by the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in all its aspects---Appeal of the husband was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA vs SHEHNAZ AKHTAR ZAHOOR AHMED — 2026 PLD 308 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD