Annual Maintenance Increase – Compound Basis.
 |
| 2026 clc 12 |
سالانہ 10٪ اضافہ نان و نفقہ پر کیسے لاگو ہوگا؟
تعارف
پس منظر
قانونی فریم ورک
ہائی کورٹ کے اہم مشاہدات
فیصلے کی اہمیت
عملی مثال
قانونی سبق
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 12
[Lahore]
Before Shams Mehmood Mirza and Abid Hussain Chattha, JJ
SABA GUL and 2 others-Petitioners
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7340 of 2024, decided on 9th October, 2024.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)
S. 17-A las inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act (XI of 2015)]---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 9-Suit for maintenance--Interim maintenance-Right to life---Provision of 5.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 (as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 20151 is a specific provision dealing with suit for maintenance as a special category of family claims-Provision of 5.17-A is introduced through Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 on 18-03-2015, which has placed maintenance of wife and children at a higher pedestal than other family claims-Maintenance allowance serves as a means of subsistence and survival for wife and children, intrinsically connected to their right to life guaranteed under Arts. 4 & 9 of the Constitution-Discretionary powers on Family Court have also been conferred under 5.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 (as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015) 2015) to prescribe annual increase in maintenance to cater for future needs and requirements of wife and children as well as depreciation in value of currency in terms of inflation--No caveat is attached to the power of Family Court to prescribe such annual increase in maintenance on compound or non-compound basis-Family Court is free to pass a reasonable decree in such behalf depending on facts and circumstances of each case.
(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-
-S. 17-A (as inserted by Punjah Family Courts (Amendment) Act (X1 of 2015)]-Suit for maintenance-Expression "the maintenance fixed by the Court shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year"-Applicability-buring execution of decree for recovery of maintenance fixed by Family Court, dispute had arisen as to quantum of annual increase in the maintenance so fixed-Validity-Expression "the maintenance fixed by the Court shall automatically stand increased at the rate of ten percent each year" ordinarily implies that quantum of maintenance fixed under a decree does not remain static or constant but is a variable figure which is meant to increase after each year--After increase of 10% at the end of first year, a new quantum of maintenance comes in field and the amount gets merged or amalgamated in the in the quantum of maintenance fixed by Court-Such process is repeated after each year till the legal entitlement of wife or children under the decree-Annual increase of each year is required to be calculated on merged amount of last preceding year for the reason that 10% increase is intrinsically linked with the principal amount and is an inseparable part of the decree-High Court directed Executing Court to enforce decree under execution in accordance with law and objection petition of respondent was dismissed---Such increase would be applied to pending proceedings and was not applicable to past and closed proceedings which had attained finality---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Mir Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Haider and others PLD 2020 SC 233; Muhammad Anwar v. Bashir Ahmad and another 2014 CLC 1819; Kashif Mahmood v. Additional District Judge and others 2022 MLD 1762: "Mian Muhammad Latif v. Additional District Judge and others Writ Petition No. 77557 of 2022; Sohaib Umar Ilyas v. Judge Family Court and others Writ Petition No. 15888 of 2021: Saif-ur-Rehman v. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 2 others 2018 SCMR 1885; Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another 2007 UKHI. 34; Muhammad Iqbal v. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar 2012 CLC 1407; Muhammad Akram v. Additional District Judge and others PLD 2008 Lahore 560; Lt. Col. Naseer Malik v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2016 SCMR 1821 and Najm Koreshi v. Chase Manhattan Bank Now Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Lahore and others 2015 SCMR 1461 rel.
Syed Muhammad Shah for Petitioners.
General for Respondent No. 3.
Ghulam Murtaza Ch., Umair Abbas, Tariq Umar Gill, Assistant Attorney General and Jahanzeb Inam, Additional Advocate