📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
What was this case about?
A man (the petitioner) was ordered by a Family Court to pay maintenance (financial support) to two children. He challenged this order in the Lahore High Court, denying that he was the father of the minors. He claimed the children were actually born from the mother's previous husband, not from him.
What did the court find?
The High Court examined the evidence and found that the man and woman had lived together as husband and wife, and the children were born during this cohabitation. The woman had consistently maintained that she was his legally wedded wife. Importantly, the man never filed a legal case (called a "suit for jactitation of marriage") to formally dispute or disprove her claim of marriage — something he could have done if he genuinely believed the marriage wasn't valid. The court also noted that he had previously sent maintenance money for the children through money order while they lived in another city, which contradicted his denial of paternity.
What did the court decide?
The High Court ruled that the children were legitimate offspring of the man, born from a lawful marital union. It dismissed his petition, upheld the maintenance order, and even imposed additional costs on him — criticizing his conduct as "shameful" for trying to avoid his legal and moral duty to support his own children.
Why it matters:
This case shows how courts determine a child's legitimacy using evidence of cohabitation and marital status, and reinforces that fathers cannot evade financial responsibility for their children through denial alone.
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
How to determine whether a son belong to father or not when he denies. This principle is discussed in the following judgment of Lahore High Court.. Citation Name : 2009 MLD 962 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : AFTAB AHMAD Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintenance---Legitimacy of children---Presumption---Petitioner assailed maintenance allowance by denying being father of minors and alleged that they were born to respondent from her previous husband---Validity---Plenty of evidence was available on file to show that petitioner and respondent kept on residing together and minors were born as a result of their cohabitation---Status of both the parties as husband and wife was proved and despite consistent claim of respondent that she was legally wedded wife of father of minors, the petitioner did not file any suit for jactitation of marriage to disprove her assertion---Minors were admittedly born during the lawful union of petitioner and respondent and petitioner had been paying them maintenance through money order during their stay in another city---High Court noted it with great concern that conduct of petitioner throughout the proceedings was contumacious rather shameful and he disowned paternity of his legitimate offsprings just to avoid payment of maintenance, which was his legal as well as moral obligation---Petitioner maliciously dragged respondents in litigation and humiliated them in society, therefore, High Court imposed special costs against him---High Court declined to interfere with maintenance imposed by the courts below---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.