Entitlement of Maintenance of Wife and Child
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a family dispute over maintenance after a marriage broke down. The wife and her minor child had filed a suit seeking monthly maintenance, delivery/medical expenses, and recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court awarded the wife maintenance only for her iddat period (a short post-divorce waiting period), granted the child monthly maintenance of Rs. 1200 until he reached adulthood, allowed Rs. 20,000 for delivery expenses and Rs. 4500 for the child's treatment, and ordered return of dowry articles (excluding gold ornaments) or their cash value.
Both the husband and wife appealed. The appellate court increased the child's maintenance to Rs. 3000 per month and raised the value of the dowry articles slightly. The husband then challenged these decisions before the Lahore High Court, arguing the amounts were excessive.
The High Court dismissed his petition, upholding both lower court rulings. It reasoned that Rs. 3000 per month was barely adequate given inflation and the real costs of raising a school-going child. On the delivery expenses, the court clarified an important point: such expenses are not limited to hospital birth costs but also cover preparing for the baby's needs afterward, including clothes, bottles, formula, and bedding. The court emphasized that a father, as provider, is responsible for these basic necessities before and separately from ongoing maintenance payments. This judgment reinforces fathers' financial responsibilities toward children and clarifies what "delivery expenses" legally include.
یہ مقدمہ ازدواجی رشتہ ٹوٹنے کے بعد نان و نفقہ کے حوالے سے ایک خانگی تنازع سے متعلق تھا۔ بیوی اور اس کے نابالغ بچے نے ماہانہ نان و نفقہ، زچگی و طبی اخراجات، اور جہیز کے سامان کی واپسی کے لیے دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ فیملی کورٹ نے بیوی کو صرف عدت کے عرصے کا نان و نفقہ دینے کا حکم دیا، بچے کے لیے بلوغت تک ماہانہ 1200 روپے نان و نفقہ مقرر کیا، زچگی کے اخراجات کے لیے 20,000 روپے اور بچے کے علاج کے لیے 4500 روپے کی منظوری دی، نیز جہیز کا سامان (سونے کے زیورات کے علاوہ) یا اس کی نقد مالیت واپس کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
شوہر اور بیوی دونوں نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی۔ اپیلیٹ عدالت نے بچے کا نان و نفقہ بڑھا کر 3000 روپے ماہانہ کر دیا اور جہیز کے سامان کی مالیت میں بھی معمولی اضافہ کیا۔ اس کے بعد شوہر نے ان فیصلوں کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا اور موقف اختیار کیا کہ یہ رقوم حد سے زیادہ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2010 Lahore 368 [Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi] Present: Jamila Jahanoor Aslam, J. SHAMAS RASHEED--Petitioner versus ADJ GUJARKHAN etc.--Respondents W.P. No. 851 of 2008, decided on 28.4.2009. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Delivery expenses--Maintainability--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, maternity/medical expenses and dowry articles--Entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 800/- only for the period of iddat whereas the minor was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 1200/- p.m. till he attains the age of majority and after deduction of the interim maintenance already paid--Delivery expenses and treatment expenses of minor was allowed--Wife was found entitled to recovery of dowery article of a propose the list attached by her and gold ornaments were excluded--Both the parties preferred appeal before First Appellate Court--Maintenance was increased from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 3,000/- till attaining the age of majority and value of dowry articles was increased--Challenge to--Validity--Enhancement in the maintenance allowance is justified as Rs. 3000/- p.m. barely covers the expenses of a growing school going child in these days of double digit inflation--As far as the delivery expenses is concerned--There are two matters to be addressed--First one is that either inadvertently as knowingly the petitioner has considered the figure as maintenance at least this is what he is terming it in the writ petition as well as in his submissions--This is a one time payment which is the delivery expenses--Second point that is needs to be clarified that delivery expenses are not limited to the expenditure of the actual birth in hospital or elsewhere, they also pertain to preparation for expected baby--Petition was dismissed. [P. 370] A & C Delivery Expenses-- ----Delivery expenses were not limited to the expenditure of the actual birth, in hospital or elsewhere--Held: Babies were not taken home from hospitals wrapped in newspapers as a lot of items need to be brought for the use of the baby after the birth, things like clothes, feeding bottles, formulae, bedding--All these were part of the delivery expenses too and it was the duty of the father as the provider foot the bill for the basic necessities of his child--Thereafter, he had to pay maintenance, as decided by Courts, if the matter be in litigation. [P. 370] B Sahibzada Abdul Ghafoor Saqi, Advocate for Petitioner. Syed Zafar Ullah Salari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Date of hearing: 28.4.2009. Order A very brief background to present writ petition is that Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were married and Respondent No. 4 was born in this wedlock. The bond broke-up and Respondent No. 4 has been in the custody of Respondent No. 3 since his birth.
2. After the break-up of the marriage Respondent No. 3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, maternity/medical expenses and dowry articles of Respondent No. 3. The Family Court (Respondent No. 2) after framing issues and conducting the trial decreed the suit of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide judgment/decree dated 13.09.2007 in the following terms.
3. Respondent No. 3 was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 800/- only for the period of iddat whereas Respondent No. 4 was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 1200/- per month till he attains the age of majority and after deduction of the interim maintenance already paid. Respondent No. 3 was allowed delivery expenses of Rs. 20,000/- and a further Rs. 4500/- as treatment expenses of Respondent No. 4 (minor). As far as the dowry articles are concerned Respondent No. 3 was found entitled to the recovery of the same apropos the list attached by her and marked "D", or Rs. 1,50,000/ in the alternative. However, gold ornaments have been excluded from the list Mark-D.
4. Petitioner, not satisfied with the judgment/decree dated 13.09.2007 impugned the same. The Respondents also preferred an appeal against the same judgment/decree of Respondent No. 2. The Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan (Respondent No. 1) heard both the appeals and consequently vide judgment/decree dated 01.03.2008 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, whereas the appeal by the Respondents was partially allowed in the terms, that the maintenance of Respondent No. 2 was increased from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 3000/- per month, till attaining the age of majority and the value of dowry articles was increased from Rs. 1,50,000/- as decided by Respondent No. 2 to Rs. 1,52,000/-.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved of both the judgments/decrees dated 01.03.2008 and 13.09.2007 passed by Respondents No. 1 and 2, has impugned the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. I have perused the record and I agree with the reasoning of both the Courts below. The enhancement in the maintenance allowance is justified as Rs. 3000/- per month barely covers the expenses of a growing, school going child in these days of double digit inflation. As far as the figure of Rs. 20,000/- is concerned there are two matters to be addressed qua this. First one is that either inadvertently as knowingly the petitioner has considered the figure as maintenance, at least this is what he is terming it in the writ petition as well as in his submissions. This is a one time payment which is the delivery expenses. Second point that needs to be clarified here, is that delivery expenses are not limited to the expenditure of the actual birth, in hospital or elsewhere, they also pertain to the preparation for the expected baby. Babies are not taken home from hospitals wrapped in the newspapers as a lot of items need to be brought for the use of the baby after the birth, things like clothes, feeding bottles, formulae, bedding etc. All these are part of the delivery expenses too and it is the duty of the father as the provider to foot the bill for the basic necessities of his child. Thereafter, he has to pay maintenance, as decided by Courts, if the matter be in litigation.
7. The petition is without merits and the impugned judgments/decrees dated 01.03.2008 and 13.09.2007 need not be interfered within the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is disposed-off in the above terms. (R.A.) Petition disposed of.