Fine on challenge 17A family case order.
والد کی نابالغ بچوں کے نفقہ میں غیر ذمہ داری
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے ایک مقدمے میں والد کی جانب سے نابالغ بچوں کے نفقہ کی ادائیگی میں غیر ذمہ دارانہ رویے کو سخت تنقید کا نشانہ بنایا اور خاندانی عدالت کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔ والد نے عدالت کی ہدایات کے باوجود عبوری نفقہ ادا نہیں کیا، جس سے بچوں کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا گیا۔
مدعیہ کی درخواست اور خاندانی عدالت کا فیصلہ
مدعیہ نے اپنی اور اپنے نابالغ بچوں کے لیے نفقہ کی درخواست دائر کی۔ خاندانی عدالت نے عبوری نفقہ مقرر کیا، جس کا مقصد بچوں کی ضروریات کو پورا کرنا تھا۔ والد کی غیر ادائیگی کی وجہ سے اس کا دفاع خارج کر دیا گیا اور نفقہ کی رقم مقدمے میں دی گئی دستاویزات کی بنیاد پر مقرر کی گئی۔
اپیلیں اور ہائی کورٹ میں ناکامی
والد نے ضلعی عدالت میں اپیل دائر کی لیکن عبوری نفقہ ادا کرنے کے احکامات کو نظر انداز کیا۔ نتیجتاً اس کی اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔ ہائی کورٹ میں بھی والد کی اپیل ناکام رہی، اور خاندانی عدالت کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا گیا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا موقف اور والد کے رویے پر تنقید
سپریم کورٹ نے والد کی اپیل مسترد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ خاندانی عدالت نے قانون کے مطابق فیصلہ دیا۔ والد کی جانب سے عبوری نفقہ ادا نہ کرنا اور مقدمہ بازی میں تاخیر قانونی حدود سے تجاوز ہے۔ عدالت نے والد کے رویے کو عدالتی عمل کا غلط استعمال قرار دیا اور اسے جرمانے کے ساتھ سزا دی تاکہ مستقبل میں ایسے غیر ذمہ دارانہ اقدامات سے روکا جا سکے۔
سبق اور والدین کے لیے انتباہ
اس فیصلے سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ والدین نابالغ بچوں کی مالی ذمہ داریوں سے فرار نہیں ہو سکتے۔ خاندانی عدالت والد کی غیر ادائیگی پر سخت اقدامات اٹھا سکتی ہے۔ بچوں کے نفقہ کی ادائیگی میں تاخیر یا نافرمانی عدالتی کارروائی اور جرمانے کا سبب بن سکتی ہے۔
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Civil Petition No.3155-L/2023
(Against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P.
No.47965/23)
Shahzad Amir Farid
....Petitioner
Versus
Mst. Sobia Amir Farid and others
….Respondents
For the petitioner:
Mr. Aftab Mustafa, ASC
(via video link from Lahore)
For the respondents:
N.R.
Date of Hearing:
30 April 2024
ORDER
Yahya Afridi, J.- The petitioner has called in question the
impugned order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Lahore High
Court, whereby his writ petition was dismissed.
2.
The striking feature of the case is the contumacious failure
of the petitioner to pay maintenance for his minor children as
fixed by the Family Court. The necessary facts are that Mst. Sobia
Amir Farid (respondent No.1) filed a suit for maintenance allowance
for herself and her minor children against her husband and father
of her children, i.e., the petitioner. The Family Court passed an
Civil Petition No. 3155-L of 2023
2
order for payment of interim-maintenance to the minors under
Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (“Act”).
However, despite availing multiple opportunities, the petitioner
failed to comply with the order. As a result, his defence was struck
off, and the suit for maintenance to the extent of minors was
decreed on the basis of averments in the plaint and other
supporting documents on record of the case. The petitioner filed
an appeal against the decision of the Family Court before the
District Court. During the appeal, he was again ordered to pay
interim maintenance, but he disregarded this order as well.
Finally, the appeal was dismissed due to his continued noncompliance and failure to appear before the Court. The petitioner
unsuccessfully challenged the orders of the Family Court and
District Court before the High Court. Now, the petitioner seeks
leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court through the
present petition.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to
point out any substantive illegality, procedural impropriety and
decisional irrationality in the order of the Family Court. The
Family Court, in accordance with Section 17-A of the Act, had the
lawful authority to strike off the defence of the petitioner and
decree the suit for maintenance on the basis of averments in the
plaint and other supporting documents on record of the case, once
the petitioner failed to pay the interim maintenance allowance by
Civil Petition No. 3155-L of 2023
3
fourteenth day of each month during the pendency of proceedings.
The petitioner was also put to notice by the Family Court to clear
the arrears of interim maintenance allowance otherwise the
provisions of Section 17-A of the Act would be invoked, which the
petitioner failed to comply with. Moreover, the determination of
the amount of maintenance by the Family Court is neither
arbitrary nor capricious. Hence, the High Court in the exercise of
its constitutional writ jurisdiction, has rightly declined to interfere
with the findings of the Family Court with regard to the quantum
of maintenance allowance. Thus, the petition is ill-founded and illadvised, and is accordingly dismissed.
4.
We note with grave concern that the conduct of the
petitioner leaves a lot to be desired. It falls significantly short of
the expected standards of fairness and amounts to gross abuse of
the process of the Court. The persistent dragging of the matter
from one court to another constitutes vexatious litigation, and
adds to undue delay and overburdening of the Courts. Such
frivolous petitions need to be strongly discouraged. Therefore, in
view of the callous disregard of the petitioner for the court order to
pay interim maintenance and his attempts to delay the payment of
decreed maintenance allowance for his minor children, we feel
inclined to impose costs on the petitioner in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to deter such
Civil Petition No. 3155-L of 2023
4
conduct in the future. The costs shall be recovered by the
executing court as part of the decree for maintenance.
Judge
Judge
Judge
Islamabad
30 April 2024.
Approved for