1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

P L D 2019 Lahore 194

Befo re Shakil-ur-Rehman Khan, J
RAFAQAT HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
ASIFA ALTAF and others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.652 of 2018, decided on 12th December, 2018.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, 13 & 26---Maintenance allowance of minor child---Compromise decree---
Non-payment of settlement amount---Suit for recovery of maintenance was decreed
in favour of respondent against petitioner who were divorced husband and wife---
Matter was settled between the parties against a sum of Rs.150,000/- as full and
final settlement of maintenance amount which amount was to be paid within 3
months but petitioner failed to comply with said conditions, resultantly Executing
Court directed petitioner to pay maintenance allowance---Validity---Conditional
compromise was a one-time window for petitioner (father) to once and for all
wriggle out of his responsibilities, particularly towards his minor daughter---Father
could not shirk off his responsibilities towards minor and mother could not have
agreed on her behalf allowing father to do so---Even if conditional compromise was
to be followed/implemented, petitioner (father) could only blame himself for not
making requisite payment within stipulated period of 03 months---Such time period
was fixed with consent of parties and they knew well what they were agreeing to in
terms of timeline---Parties could not be allowed to wriggle out of same more so, for
the reason that matter was being governed by Family Courts Act, 1964---High
Court declined to interfere in the matter---Constitutional petition was dismissed in
circumstances.
Waheed Anwar v. Additional District Judge and others 2017 YLR 827; Muhammad
Asim and others v. Mst. Samro Begum and others PLD 2018 SC 819 and Abdul
Khaliq v. Sidra Khaliq and 3 others 2017 CLC 487 ref.
Saifur ur Rehman v. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 2 others 2018
SCMR 1885 rel.
(b) Interpretation of statutes-
----Principle---Purposive rather than literal approach to interpretation is to be
adopted while interpreting statutes and therefore, interpretation that advances
purpose of provisions of the statute is to be preferred rather than interpretation
whicih defeats its objects.
Shafqat Saleem Khokhar for Petitioner.
Ch. Abid Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 12th December, 2018.
JUDGMENT

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 1/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

SHAKIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---The brief facts leading to the filing of the

instant writ petition are that vide judgment and decree dated 14-9-2015, the learned
Family Court, partially decreed the suit filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the
following manner:--
"i. Claim of plaintiff No.1 for recovery of dowry articles is dismissed.
ii. The plaintiff No.1 is entitled for recovery of delivery expense at the rate of
Rs.8000/- from the defendant.
iii. Claim for maintenance allowance of plaintiff No.1 is dismisscd.
iv. Claim for maintenance allowance of plaintiff No.2 is decreed at the rate of
Rs.7000 from 08.12.2008 uptill legal entitlement with 10% annual
increase."
Both the parties i.e. petitioner as well as the respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed
separate appeals against the same which were decided vide consolidated judgment
and decree dated 30.8.2016 in the following terms:-
"16. For what has been discussed above, both the appeals are partially accepted
and impugned judgment and decree is modified to the effect that the
appellant No.1 is held entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate
of Rs.4000/- per month from April, 2008 till divorce and at the same rate for
the period of Iddat whereas maintenance allowance of minor appellant No.2
is reduced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.5000/- per month from the date of her birth
i.e. 8.12.2008 till she is legally entitled with 10% annual increment. The
first increment will take effect from January, 2017. Remaining claims in
both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost. Copy of this judgment
be also placed in connected appeal."
The petitioner challenged the said judgments and decrees through Writ Petition
No.2705/2016 which was decided in terms of order dated 24.5.2017 in the
following terms:-
"This petition calls into question decrees of the learned Courts below whereby
maintenance allowance of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was determined.
2. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the
parties entered into compromise and jointly submit that the petitioner has
already deposited Rs.250,000/- out of the decretal amount with the Deputy
Registrar (Judl) of this Court; that by allowing C.M.No.83 of 2017 the
Deputy Registrar (Judl) be directed to pay Rs.250,000/- to respondents
Nos.1 and 2 after due verification and proper receipt; that petitioner be
directed to pay a further amount of Rs.150,000/- to respondents Nos.1 and 2
within three months from today for the full and final satisfaction of the
decree; that on payment of Rs.150,000/- within three months by the
petitioner the decree would stand satisfied otherwise the decree of the
learned Courts below shall stand revived and respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall
have a right to get it executed; and, that in terms of above this petition be
disposed of.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 2/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

3. Order accordingly."
In view of the above, the petitioner / judgment debtor got paid the sum of
Rs.150,000/- and the following order was passed on 29.9.2017 by the learned
Executing Court:-
"Learned counsel for the judgment debtor states that they are ready to pay
Rs.1,50,000/- to the decree holder as per direction of Hon'ble Lahore High
Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Writ Petition No.2705/2016 dated
24.05.2017. The father of the judgment debtor has paid amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the father of decree holder who received the same and
endorsed his thumb impression and signature in token of the receipt of said
amount.
2. Learned counsel for the decree holder maintained that in the light of direction
of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated
24.05.2017 the instant decree has been satisfied. I have perused the order of
Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated
24.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2705/2016 vide above said order the
Hon'ble court directed the judgment debtor as follows:-
"That petitioner be directed to pay a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to
respondents Nos.1 and 2 within three months from today for the full and
final satisfaction of the decree; that on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- within
three months by the petitioner the decree would stand satisfied otherwise the
decree of the learned Courts below shall stand revived and respondents
Nos.1 and 2 shall have a right to get it executed."
3. Perusal of the above said direction of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi
Bench Rawalpindi clearly gives the direction to the judgment debtor to pay
Rs.l,50,000/- to decree holder within three months from today i.e.
24.05.2017 which means that the period of three months has reckoned on
24.08.2017.
4. As per record the judgment debtor has badly failed to
comply the direction of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench
Rawalpindi in its letters and spirits. As the judgment debtor has failed to
comply the direction of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench
Rawalpindi vide order dated 24.05.2017. Therefore, in the light of the said
order now the decree of trial court shall stand in field and same shall be
executed.
Now to come up for further payments for 03.11.2017."
The above noted order dated 29.9.2017 was challenged through appeal which
was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017. The petitioner/judgment
debtor has challenged the order dated 29.9.2017 as well as judgment and decree
dated 20.11.2017 through the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a compromise had been entered
into by the petitioner and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 whereby it was agreed that a

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 3/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- when paid shall be taken as full and final settlement of decree
dated 30.8.2016 and it had to be paid within three months and on the basis of the
said compromise, the Writ Petition No.2705/2016 was disposed of; he stated that
the petitioner/judgment debtor immediately contacted respondents Nos.1 and 2 for
paying the said amount but they insisted to receive it in the learned Executing
Court. The father of the said respondent No. 1 did not turn up before the learned
Executing Court on 09.6.2017 and 14.7.2017 and the case was adjourned to
29.9.2017 due to the summer vacations in the month of August; he further pointed
out that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 had also submitted a schedule of payment and
the execution proceedings were adjourned for the reply thereto and the matter was
fixed for 29.9.2017; he added that the real father of the petitioner/judgment debtor,
in his capacity as attorney offered to pay the said amount and the father of the
respondent No.1, in the presence of his counsel, without any objection received the
same. Moreover, the learned counsel for the decree holder made a statement before
the said learned Executing Court to the effect that, in the light of the direction of
the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 24.5.2017 the
instant decree has been satisfied; he vehemently argued that in view of the above
circumstances and the statement of the learned counsel for the decree holder, the
execution petition should have been disposed of but unfortunately the learned
Executing Court revived the decree dated 14.9.2015; he next contended that the
petitioner / judgment debtor challenged the said order dated 29.9.2017 in appeal
which was unfortunately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2017,
hence this writ petition.
His first objection was that learned District Court committed an illegality by
issuing a decree sheet in execution proceedings, which was not only illegal but also
amounts to issuing two decrees in one suit; he further contended that the payment
was made and received in accordance with the direction of this Court and the offer
was accepted by the father of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 without any objection
and with free will. Moreover, no objection regarding alleged delay was raised by
the father of respondents Nos.1 and 2 or their learned counsel and that they never
insisted for execution of the decree; he then threw the challenge to the order dated
29.9.2017 and contended that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law because
the respondents Nos.1 along with their counsel made a statement about the
satisfaction of the decree but unfortunately the learned Courts below are bent upon
to execute a decree which stands satisfied with the concurrence of the contesting
parties; he then contended that the learned Executing Court as well as the learned
appellate Court lost sight of the fact that in the earlier round vide judgment and
decree dated 30.8.2016 the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated
14.9.2015 was modified but unfortunately both the learned Courts below are now
putting in their efforts to execute the decree dated 14.9.2015; he further stated that
the impugned order and the judgment and decree cannot supersede the order dated
24.5.2017 passed in W.P. No.2705/2016. The said learned Courts below lost sight
of the fact that only the decree of the learned appellate Court dated 30.8.2016 had
been challenged in W.P. No.2705/2016; he further contended that, without
conceding mere delay if any could have been easily condoned in view of the fact
that regular periodical payments were being made by the petitioner judgment debtor
without any fail after the order passed by this Court, that too, had an objection been

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 4/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

raised regarding , limitation of 3 months by the decree holders/respondents Nos.I

and 2; he then stated that, again without conceding the delay, if any was beyond the
control of the petitioner / judgment debtor due to long adjournment for summer
vacations and the insistence of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to receive the requisite
amounts in the Court. His next argument was that both the learned Courts below
have exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularities, illegalities and the
same are based on surmises and conjectures as well as result of mis-reading of the
material on record. Today, he also placed the certified copy of the order sheet of the
learned Executing Court, on record. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1
and 2 has also seen the same and has no objection if the same is taken on record of
the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that on
09.6.2017 and 14.7.2017 the father of the respondent No.I was not present and the
matter was fixed for 29.9.2017 but this aspect of the matter was not taken into
consideration while passing the impugned order and the impugned judgment and
decree challenged before this Court through the instant writ petition. He further
explained that the delay was only due to the Holidays and therefore, the time period
fixed by this Court through the order of the earlier writ petition could not be
complied with, particularly when respondents Nos.l and 2 wanted to collect said
amount only in Court; he further contended that the decree holder had not
challenged the said aspect of the matter before the learned Executing Court and had
they challenged it, the petitioner / judgment debtor would not have deposited the
said money.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that the
petitioner/judgment debtor is not paying the future maintenance since last three
months. He further stated that the petitioner/judgment debtor never offered the said
amount of money, out of Court and that the father of the said respondent No. 1 is
not her attorney in the execution proceedings.
In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor argued that all
the points raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are at best
factual controversies.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record
with their able assistance.
5. It transpires from the record that the suit for recovery of dowry articles or
their price in the alternative, recovery of delivery expenses of respondent No.2,
recovery of maintenance allowance of respondent No.1, recovery of maintenance
allowance of respondent No.2 with annual increase and recovery of maintenance
allowance for lddat period of the respondent No.1 was partially decreed vide
judgment and decree dated 14.9.2015. The appeals filed by the petitioner as well as
respondents Nos.1 and 2 were decided vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2016.
The learned appellate Court partially accepted both the appeals while modifying the
judgment and decree dated 14.9.2015 passed by the learned Family Court as noted
above in detail. The petitioner had earlier challenged the same through a Writ
Petition No.2705/2016 which was decided in terms of order dated 24.5.2017, as
noted above. It is also necessary to note here that the respondent No.1 and the
petitioner were married on 23.3.2007 and Rukhsati took place on 28.3.2007.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 5/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

Subsequently, the petitioner went to Australia in June, 2007. In March 2008, he

came back to Pakistan and in April, 2008 the respondent No.1 was expelled from
his house. Respondent No.2 was born on 08.12.2008 and respondent No.1 was
divorced on 16.02.2012. The above noted suit was filed by the respondents Nos.1
and 2 on 10.7.2012. This suit was decreed to the extent of delivery expenses at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- and the maintenance allowance of the respondent No.2 was
decreed at the rate of Rs.7,000/- from 08.12.2008 uptill her legal entitlement with
10% annual increase. The learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
30.8.2016, while upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court,
modified the same and held that the respondent No.1 is also entitled to recover
maintenance allowance. However, it reduced the maintenance allowance of the
minor / respondent No.2 from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month.
On the other hand, this Court vide order dated 24.5.2017 passed in Writ Petition
No.2705/2017 noted the terms and conditions of the conditional compromise
between the parties. The main condition for the said full and final satisfaction of
the decree was the payment of Rs.150,000/- within three (3) months by the
petitioner, otherwise the decrees of the learned Courts below were to stand revived.
6. In this view of the matter and the arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties, it is imperative to note the relevant statutory provisions relating to a money
decree passed by the learned Courts below. The relevant provision being Section 13
of the Family Courts Act. 1964 provides as follows: -
"13. Enforcement of decrees.- (1) The Family Court shall pass a decree in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall enter its particulars
in the prescribed register.
(2) If any money is paid or any property is delivered in the presence of the
Family Court, in satisfaction of the decree, it shall enter the fact of payment
or the delivery of property, as the case may be, in the aforesaid register.
(3) Where a decree relates to the payment of money and the decretal amount is
not paid within time specified by the Court not exceeding thirty days, the
same shall, if the Court so directs, be recovered as arrears of land revenue,
and on recovery shall be paid to the decree-holder.
(4) The decree shall be executed by the Court, passing it or by such other Civil
Court as the District Judge may, by special or general order, direct.
(5) A Family Court may, if it so deems fit, direct that any money to be paid
under a decree passed by it be paid in such installments as it deems fit."
7. The Family Court Rules, 1965 framed under Section 26 of the Family Courts
Act, 1964 provides as follows:-
" l6. In every suit, on passing the judgment, a decree shall be drawn up in Form I
and shall be signed by the presiding Judge. The decree shall bear the seal of
the Court.
17. The Court shall maintain a register of decrees and orders in the form
prescribed for decrees and orders under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 6/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

18. Whenever any fine is paid under section 15 or section 16 or money or

property is deposited with or realized by the Court under the Act or these
rules, a receipt shall be given in Form II which shall be serially numbered
and the counterfoil thereof shall be kept in the Court.
19. All fines, monies, or property deposited or realized and disbursed by the
Court shall be entered in a register in Form III.
20. Where the Court receives any amount payable to a party it shall cause a
notice thereof to be served on the party entitled to receive it and shall pay it
to the party concerned within four days, so far as may be of his applying
therefor."
A joint reading of the above go to show that a special procedure has been laid
down for the purposes of executing a money decree passed under the Family Courts
Act, 1964.
8. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner but in view of the record and the conduct of the petitioner, cannot accept
the same. Even if it is accepted that the father of the respondent No.1 had insisted
to receive the said amount of Rs.150,000/- before the learned Executing Court, and
he subsequently failed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 09.6.2017
and 14.7.2017, the said amount could have been easily deposited before the learned
Executing Court in compliance of the conditional compromise reflected in the order
dated 24.5.2017 of this Court. The order sheet placed on record today by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and not objected to by the learned counsel for the
respondents Nos.1 and 2 clearly show that on 09.6.2017 the case was simply
adjourned to 14.7.2017 for making the payment. This order was passed in the
presence of the learned counsel for the parties. On 14.7.2017, again the learned
counsel for the parties were present and a schedule for payment was submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2/decree holders and the case
was adjourned to 29.9.2017 for filing reply to the same.
It would not be out of place to mention here that the decretal amount that is to be
paid according to the judgments and decrees of the learned Family Court and the
learned appellate Court include:-
(i) Rs.8,000/- for the delivery expenses of the respondent No.2;
(ii) Maintenance allowance of the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- from
April 2008 to 16.02.2016, that is the date when she was divorced and at the
same rate for the Iddat period; and
(iii) Maintenance allowance of respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from
08.12.2008 till she is legally entitled with 10% annual increment and the
first increment was to take effect from January, 2017.
Keeping in view the above and more importantly the fact that the
conditional compromise was not fulfilled by the petitioner within the stipulated
period and irrespective of the fact that the father of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as
well as their counsel had taken the sum of Rs.150,000/- on 29.9.2017 without any
objection did not debar the learned Executing Court from applying its mind to the

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 7/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

terms of the conditional compromise entered into by and between the parties before
this Court on 24.5.2017. Reliance is placed on the case of Waheed Anwar v.
Additional District Judge and others (2017 YLR 827) wherein the constitutional
petition was dismissed for the reason that the conditional compromise was not
followed in letter and spirit and as a consequence the decree was held to be
executable. I am also surprised to note that the petitioner being the father of the
minor through his counsel contended that had the other side challenged the delay in
making the payment, the petitioner/judgment debtor would not have deposited the
said money. The conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him of the discretionary
relief under the constitutional jurisdiction. It is also incorrect on his part to argue
that the learned Courts below are adamant to execute the judgment and decree
dated 14.9.2015 passed by the learned Family Court. In this regard, it is reiterated
that the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2015 passed by the learned Family Court
was upheld but modified vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2016. Therefore, the
same is not dead document. The conditional compromise was probably a one-time
window for the petitioner to once and for all wriggle out of his responsibilities,
particularly towards his minor daughter. I cannot help but to express my surprise to
the terms and conditions of the same. The question is that how can a father shirk of
his responsibilities towards the minor and who could have agreed on her behalf
allowing the father to do so. In any case, even if the conditional compromise as
reflected in order dated 24.5.2017 was to be followed/implemented, the petitioner
can only blame himself for not making the requisite payment within the stipulated
period of three (3) months. In such view of the matter, the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner are of no consequence. It is the moral as well as legal
responsibility of the petitioner to provide for his daughter till her legal entitlement.
The petitioner due to his conduct has now missed the bus.
There is yet another aspect that needs consideration. It is noted from the
judgment and decree dated 30.8.2016 passed by the learned appellate Court about
the conduct and status of the petitioner as follows:-
12. As far as status of respondent is concerned, it is transpired from the file that
neither the appellant nor the respondent had appeared in person before the
court and both of them had produced evidence through special attorney. It is
also evident from the file that no direct evidence has been tendered by the
appellant to establish the financial status of the respondent but this fact is
established from the file that the respondent is residing abroad in Australia.
Although the respondent has contended that he is in Australia for the
purpose of getting education but this is also very much clear from the record
that he has completed his certificate in Printing and Graphic Arts which
means that he had completed his higher education in Australia in 2009. The
statement of the respondent was recorded in the year 2015 being DW.01
wherein it is evident that the respondent remained in Australia till 11.2.2015
and no reason has been provided that why he is living abroad despite
completing his education which depicts that he is there just to earn his
livelihood. Even otherwise, the respondent had gone abroad for getting
higher education that too is sufficient to establish that he is financially a
very strong person, because in our society an ordinary man cannot afford

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 8/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

such sort of blessing in shape of Higher Education. Although the appellant

has failed to establish that the respondent is earning Rs. 1,50,000/- but
keeping in view the status of both the parties, the appellant No.1 is held
entitled to recover maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4000- per month
from April, 2008 till divorce and at the same rate for the period of Iddat.
13. As far as minor daughter appellant No.02 is concerned, it is claim of the
appellant through her appeal that the maintenance fixed by the trial court is
not in accordance with status of the respondent and is meager one, whereas
the respondent contended that he is merely a student at Australia and cannot
pay the granted maintenance allowance which should be reduced. From
perusal of record it is evident that no direct evidence has been tendered by
the appellant to establish financial status of the respondent. It is already
discussed in the preceding paragraph that the minor was born in the house of
parents of appellant No.1 during the period of Ghair Abadi, therefore, there
is no justification to allow the appeal of the respondent regarding reduction
of period of maintenance allowance as same has been proved and
established through evidence of the respondent. As far as quantum of
maintenance allowance is concerned, there is no sufficient evidence
available on the file to establish that the respondent is a man of strong
financial resources to pay maintenance allowance as claimed by the
appellant. Even otherwise, age of the minor at present is almost eight years
and there is nothing on the file to establish the monthly expenditure of the
minor as no receipt of school or otherwise has been produced by the
appellant to establish the monthly expenditure of the minor, therefore,
quantum of maintenance allowance of the appellant No.01 is reduced from
Rs.7000/- to Rs.5000/- per month from the date of her birth i.e. 8.12.2008
till she is legally entitled with 10% annual increment. The first increment
will take effect from January, 2017 and the decree/judgment of learned trial
court is modified accordingly."
The record shows that nothing was placed on record before the learned Courts
below regarding the monthly expenditure of the minor, particularly regarding
schooling expenses etc. and keeping in view the same, the quantum of maintenance
allowance was reduced from Rs.7.000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month by the learned
Appellate Court while modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court. The record also shows that the petitioner went to Australia for his
higher education and it is noted from the record that after having completed his
education there, he is now working there. This aspect has been specifically noted
by the learned appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 30.8.2016.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Muhammad
Asim and others v. Mst. Samro Begum and others (PLD 2018 SC 819) has held as
under:-
"6. That as regards the learned counsel's contention that the earnings of the
Muhammad Asim are not known, we deprecate this attempt at intentional
non-disclosure. Muhammad Asim is employed by PAEC but elects not to
disclose his position or salary; he thus seeks to take advantage of his own

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 9/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

wilful non-disclosure. Where a husband is required to maintain his wife,

former wife during her iddat period or child and is required to pay
maintenance, including the arrears of maintenance, his present and past
earnings must be disclosed by him, because his financial status determines
the amount of maintenance that should be awarded. In case of non-
disclosure an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Family judges
should try to ascertain the salary and earnings of the husband/father who is
required to pay maintenance. Muhammad Asim did not disclose his salary
and earnings but considers the maintenance that has been awarded to be
excessive. However, wilful non-disclosure of his earnings suggest that the
maintenance amount is well within his means; his conduct further betrays
that he does not want to be fair and has unnecessarily embroiled his former
wife and child in needless litigation. The only objective for assailing the
judgment of the Appellate Court and then of the High Court has been to
starve the needs of his own child and the legal dues of his former wife. This
is unconscionable and inexcusable."
It would not be out of place to note here that subsection (4) of Section 17-A of
the Family Courts Act, 1964 provides as follows:-
"17A. Suit for maintenance.-(4) For purposes of fixing the maintenance, the
Family Court may summon the relevant documentary evidence from any
organization, body or authority to determine the estate and resources of thc
defendant."
In such view of the matter the statutory provision empowers the Family Courts
to put in serious efforts while utilizing its said power in order to determine not only
the estate but also the resources of the defendant, for the purposes of fixing the
maintenance, in each and every case.
In view of the case reported as Abdul Khaliq v. Sidra Khaliq and 3 others (2017
CLC 487), the Family Court can be approached for enhancement of the
maintenance allowance of the minor by way of filing an appropriate application
supported by the relevant documents, if any to ensure that she is provided proper
education and her other needs. ln the above background, the order dated 29.9.2017
passed by the learned Executing Court as well as the judgment dated 20.11.2017
are not liable to be interfered with under the constitutional jurisdiction.
The record shows that there is no effort, none whatsoever, on the part of the
petitioner/judgment debtor to comply with the terms and conditions of the
conditional compromise entered into by him voluntarily for the purposes of
depositing the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- within the period of three months. It is
also evident from the record that the date before which this had to be done was
fixed in the presence of the learned counsel of the Judgment Debtor. It is a
commonly known fact that the learned lower courts observe holidays in the month
of August every year. Such time period was fixed with consent of the parties in the
presence of their learned counsel and they knew well what they were agreeing to, in
terms of the timeline. Now they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the same more
so for the reason that the matter is governed by the Family Courts Act, 1964, the
purpose of which has been very clearly laid down by the honourable Supreme

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 10/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Saifur-Rehman v. Additional District

Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 2 others (2018 SCMR 1885) wherein it was held that a
special forum in the shape of Family Courts with special procedure has been made
for expeditious settlements and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family
affairs. It was further noted that purposive rather than literal approach to the
interpretation has to be adopted while interpreting statutes and therefore, the
interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act is to be preferred rather than
the interpretation which defeats its objects.
9. In view of the above, instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any
force. Learned Executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution
application in accordance with law.
MH/R-2/L Petition dismisse

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 11/12
1/21/2021 P L D 2019 Lahore 194

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2019L19 12/12