📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over child maintenance and dowry articles. A woman sued for maintenance allowance for her minor son and for recovery of dowry items. The trial court ruled in her favor, ordering monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 30,000 as compensation for dowry articles. When the husband's appeal was rejected, he challenged the decision before the Lahore High Court, arguing that the courts should have ordered a DNA test to verify whether the child was really his, and that certain documents used against him were wrongly admitted as evidence.
The High Court rejected his arguments. It noted that the husband himself had admitted knowing about the child's birth and had allowed the child's name to be recorded in his family record. The child was born about a year before the divorce, meaning he was born during the marriage. Under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance, a child born during a valid marriage is legally presumed legitimate unless proven otherwise, and the burden of disproving this was on the husband, who failed to provide evidence.
The court also ruled that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely to challenge legitimacy, citing risks of error, lack of adequate facilities in Pakistan, and the harm mislabeling could cause a child for life. Since the husband raised the legitimacy issue more than eleven years after birth, his claim was seen as an attempt to avoid financial responsibility. The court upheld the lower courts' rulings and dismissed the petition, reinforcing legal protections for children's legitim
یہ مقدمہ بچے کے نان و نفقہ اور جہیز کے سامان کے تنازع سے متعلق تھا۔ ایک عورت نے اپنے نابالغ بیٹے کے لیے نان و نفقہ کے الاؤنس اور جہیز کے سامان کی واپسی کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس کے حق میں فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے دو ہزار روپے ماہانہ نان و نفقہ اور جہیز کے سامان کے عوض تیس ہزار روپے معاوضہ ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا۔ جب شوہر کی اپیل مسترد ہوئی تو اس نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں اس فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا اور دلیل دی کہ عدالتوں کو یہ معلوم کرنے کے لیے ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کا حکم دینا چاہیے تھا کہ آیا بچہ واقعی اس کا اپنا ہے، اور یہ کہ اس کے خلاف استعمال ہونے والے بعض دستاویزات کو غلط طور پر شہادت کے طور پر تسلیم کیا گیا تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے اس کے دلائل مسترد کر دیے۔ عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ شوہر نے خود اس بات کا اعتراف کیا تھا کہ اسے بچے کی پیدائش کا علم تھا اور اس نے بچے کا نام اپنے خاندانی ریکارڈ میں درج کرنے کی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Interpretation of Articles 117,118, 119 and 128 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Ordinance addressed in this judgment.. Citation Name : 2010 PLD 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : KHIZAR HAYAT Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KABIRWALA S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117, 118, 119 & 128---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance for minor son and dowry articles---Trial Court decreed the suit fixing maintenance at Rs.2000 per month and awarding Rs.30, 000 as alternative price of dowry articles---Defendant's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court---Defendant contended that the Appellate Court did not issue direction for conducting DNA Test to determine the legitimacy of the minor and that the courts below allowed plaintiff to enter and rely on documents which were not attached at the time of initiation of suit---Validity---Defendant's admissions regarding his knowledge of the minor's birth and entry of his name in defendant's Shajrah Nasab by Halqa Patwari led to the conclusion that his denial of legitimacy of his son was a ploy meant to avoid maintenance---Defendant admitted having divorced the plaintiff but failed to disprove the birth of minor one year before divorce---Birth during marriage was conclusive proof of legitimacy under Art.I28 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Objection to admissibility of documents produced by plaintiff was not tenable as the plaintiff produced the copy of birth certificate of the minor only after defendant refused to acknowledge the minor as his son---Even otherwise, birth certificate was a public document to which presumption of truth was attached, therefore, no exception could be taken to the admissibility of the same---Direction could not be issued for conducting the DNA Test as a matter of routine in cases where father refused to acknowledge his child born during lawful wedlock because under Art.128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a child born during continuance of a valid marriage or within two years of its dissolution, if mother remained unmarried during that period, was conclusive proof that he was legitimate child of that man, unless the man denied the same---Even otherwise, burden of proof under Arts.117, 118 and 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was on the defendant---Birth of the minor one year before divorce indicated that he was born during subsistence of marriage, presumption could safely be drawn that he was legitimate child of the defendant---In view of the undesirable practice of denying legitimacy of one's own child in order to avoid maintenance or exclude the child form inheritance, issuance of direction for DNA Test was not proper---Conditions were not suitable in Pakistan for application of DNA Test owing to lack of skills and facilities required for DNA Test---Any mistake or malpractice committed in the course of DNA Test was tantamount to stigmatize the child for the rest of his life---Possibility of error in the results of DNA Test could not be ruled out, therefore, attending circumstance of the case had to be taken into consideration---Point of time at which father denied paternity was a relevant factor, so considerable delay in raising the plea of illegitimacy was not permissible---Defendant denied paternity after more than eleven years of the birth of minor son and failed to produce any cogent evidence to rule out possibility of his cohabitation with the plaintiff---Concurrent findings of courts below could not be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction unless subordinate courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or such findings were not based on any evidence---Findings of fact recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction could not be challenged through constitutional petition merely on the ground that the same evidence could be viewed differently---Courts below did not commit any illegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstance.