A CASE STUDY ON ENHANCEMENT

OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE
Present Parties of the Case
• Petitioner- Nazia Bibi
• Respondent- Additional District Judge, Ferozewala
Legal Representatives for the Parties of the case
• For Petitioners- Chaudhary Aurangzeb Gujjar in Writ
Petition No.154537 of 2018 and for Respondent 2 to
5 in Writ Petition No.194641 of 2018.
• For Respondents- Mr. Imran Muhammad Sarwar for
Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No.154537 of
2018, for Petitioner in Writ Petition 194641 of 2018.
 BRIEF FACTS

• In the present case the Petitioner No.1 (Nazia Bibi)

filed a suit for recovery and enhancement of
maintenance – decided (2014)- Rs.7000/- per month
as maintenance along with 10% yearly increase per
month was pronounced.
• (2016 )-Petitioner No.1 filed an application for the
enhancement. It was disapproved(2017). Reason?
• The Petitioner No.1 filed a second application for the
enhancement - from Rs.7000/- to Rs.300, 000/- per
child per month. It was disapproved (2017). Reason?
• The Petitioner No.1 filed an appeal before Respondent
No.1 against order dated 26.7.2017. It was partially
approved-from Rs.7000/- to Rs.12, 000/- per head per
month plus 10% yearly increase was pronounced
(2018)
• Petitioners are discontented by the amount fixed for
the enhancement of maintenance (Rs.12000/- per
month per minor)
 ISSUES THEREIN
• Whether maintenance of minors and wife depends upon
the financial status of father.
• Would maintenance amount be increased once fixed by
court or applications for enhancement can be considered.
• Amount of maintenance required for minors Would /
Would Not be increased as per the growing needs of
present period
• There Should / Should Not be legitimate standard to
examine the quantum of maintenance?
• Are documentary evidences required in procedure of
examining and in fixation of enhancement of maintenance
for minors?
 ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
(WIFE)
• Respondent has financial capacity to pay more than
12,000 for minors Maintenance as Evident from the
Documentary Evidences.
• In response to Her Late Appeal she argued that she
didn’t know that the courts are open during August
Month.
• With growth of the child the needs of the child also
grows so the enhancement claim was maintainable.
 ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
(WIFE)
• Moreover, The Petitioner professed that the
amount of maintenance is to be enhanced at the
rate of Rs. 300,000/- per month per child as the
Respondent No. 3 has the financial capacity to
manage this required amount of maintenance for
minors.
• She argued that while fixing the amount of
maintenance 12,000 per minor the appellant court
did not consider the documentary Evidences.
 ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT NO. 3
(HUSBAND)
• The Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that
the Respondent no.3 is discontented by the impugned
judgment on account of fact that the same has been
passed in time barred appeal, which as per the
contention of learned counsel. Respondent no.1 that
is additional district judge, Ferozewala could not have
condoned the delay.
• The conduct of the petitioners by repeatedly filing
enhancement applications shows that she did not have
a genuine requirement of enhancement but only
wants to harass respondent no.3.
 ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT NO. 3
(HUSBAND)
• The amount fixed by the court at Rs.12, 000/- per month per
children, this amount is arbitrary, without due consideration of
the relevant facts or record; that the court did not take into
consideration the monthly income of respondent no.3 nor did it
take into consideration the fact that respondent no.3 is married
and has six children, hence he is not able to pay Rs.12, 000/- per
month per child.
• Respondent no.3 was unable to pay the amount sought by the
petitioners as the demand is not justifiable and said that it’s more
than the minor needs
• The judge family court considered the application for
enhancement of maintenance and dismissed the same on the
ground that the suit was decreed on 21.5.2014 and it was never
challenged by the petitioners before any forum, hence the minors
 RELEVANT ORDINANCES OR ACTS

• The Muhammadan Law section 369

• The Muhammadan Law section 352
• The Muhammadan Law section 370
• The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 section
17(A), sub-section 04
 JUDGMENT
• There should be a legitimate degree and standard to
attain the meaning of ‘Maintenance’
• To determine the ‘Quantum of Maintenance of Child’
there should be a reasonable standard
• The High Court (Ayesha A. Malik .J ) stated that:
The impugned judgment (11.1. 2018) passed by the
Additional District Judge has not determined the
quantum and fixation of the maintenance of minors
and earning capacity of the father in a proper way.
The Respondent no.1 (Additional District Judge)
did not examine the evidence properly. Therefore,
both the Petitions are accepted.