بچوں کے نان و نفقہ اور بیوی کے سونے کے زیورات سے متعلق اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
حوالہ: 2026 CLC 1513
بچوں کے نان و نفقہ کا تعین کیسے ہوگا؟
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ بچوں کے نان و نفقہ کا تعین کرتے وقت صرف والد کی آمدن کے بیان کو نہیں دیکھا جائے گا، بلکہ اس کی مالی حیثیت، فریقین کے سماجی مرتبے اور نابالغ بچوں کی ضروریات کو بھی مدنظر رکھا جائے گا۔
اس مقدمے میں بیوی کا مؤقف تھا کہ شوہر ماہانہ دو لاکھ روپے کماتا ہے، لیکن شوہر کی اتنی آمدن ثابت نہیں ہو سکی۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ نان و نفقہ کے تعین میں دستیاب شواہد اور بچوں کی ضروریات کا مجموعی جائزہ لینا ضروری ہے۔
فیملی اپیل میں اضافی دستاویزات پیش کرنے کا معاملہ
شوہر نے اپیلیٹ عدالت میں ریونیو ریکارڈ اور کرایہ نامہ جیسی اضافی دستاویزات پیش کرنے کے معاملے پر اعتراض کیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ فیملی مقدمات میں انصاف، مساوات اور فوری فیصلے کے اصول بنیادی اہمیت رکھتے ہیں۔
فیملی کورٹس ایکٹ 1964 کا مقصد خاندانی تنازعات کو کم سے کم قانونی پیچیدگیوں کے ساتھ جلد حل کرنا ہے۔ عدالت نے اس مقدمے میں اپیلیٹ عدالت کے اختیار کردہ طریقۂ کار کو قانون کے منافی قرار نہیں دیا۔
بیوی کے سونے کے زیورات پر شوہر کا مؤقف
شوہر نے بیوی کو سونے کے زیورات دینے اور ان پر اس کے حق کے متعلق ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو چیلنج کیا۔ تاہم، بیوی کا مؤقف اس معاملے میں مسلسل ایک جیسا رہا، جبکہ شوہر کے بیانات میں تضاد پایا گیا۔
ایک طرف شوہر نے کہا کہ اس کی طرف سے بیوی کو کوئی زیورات نہیں دیے گئے، جبکہ دوسری طرف اس نے تسلیم کیا کہ اس نے اور اس کے خاندان کے دیگر افراد نے زیورات دیے تھے۔ بعض زیورات جہیز کا سامان واپس لینے کے وقت شوہر کی والدہ نے بھی واپس کیے تھے۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب دونوں ماتحت عدالتیں شواہد کی بنیاد پر بیوی کے حق میں فیصلہ دے چکی ہوں تو محض کسی دوسری عدالتی نظیر کا حوالہ دے کر ان نتائج کو تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا، خصوصاً جب دونوں مقدمات کے حقائق مختلف ہوں۔
کیا ہائی کورٹ میں فیملی مقدمے کی دوبارہ اپیل ہو سکتی ہے؟
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ اپیل کا حق قانون کے تحت حاصل ہوتا ہے۔ جہاں قانون دوسری اپیل کی اجازت نہیں دیتا، وہاں آئینی درخواست کو محض ایک اور اپیل کے طور پر استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
اگر ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ شواہد کا جائزہ لے کر فیصلہ دے چکی ہوں تو ہائی کورٹ ہر مقدمے میں دوبارہ حقائق کی جانچ نہیں کرے گی۔ آئینی دائرۂ اختیار کو قانون کے مطابق استعمال کرنا ضروری ہے اور اس کا مقصد خاندانی تنازعات کو غیر ضروری طور پر طول دینا نہیں۔
فیصلہ
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے وجوہات پر مبنی اور دستیاب شواہد کے مطابق تھے، اس لیے ان میں مداخلت کی کوئی بنیاد موجود نہیں تھی۔ چنانچہ شوہر کی آئینی درخواست خارج کر دی گئی۔
قانونی اصول: بچوں کے نان و نفقہ کا تعین والد کی مالی حیثیت اور بچوں کی ضروریات کو سامنے رکھ کر کیا جائے گا، جبکہ فیملی اپیلیٹ عدالت کے فیصلے کے خلاف آئینی درخواست کو دوسری اپیل کا متبادل نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔
Must read the Judgment.
2026 CLC 1513
[Islamabad]
Before Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J
ZULQARNAIN AHMED --Petitioner
Versus
Mst. NAZISH SHAHEEN and 4 others ---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2024, decided on 17th October, 2025.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
Ss. 17(1), 17-B & Sched., Part I--Suit for maintenance allowance---Quantum of maintenance allowance---Additional documents, submission/adducing of- of--Permissibility---Family ssibility---Family Court, procedure adopted by-Powers-Scope-Before the First Appellate Court an application for additional evidence/documents (i.e. copies of revenue record and rent agreement) was moved by the by the husband/father--Validity-Appeal is considered a continuation of trial-Likewise, the Family Court, whether as a Trial Court or an Executing Court, is governed by the principles of equity, justice and fair play-The main object of the Family Courts Act, 1964 ('the Act, 1964) is the protection and convenience of the weaker and vulnerable segments of society, i.e. women and children, and to minimize technicalities and procedural bottlenecks for the purpose of speedy justice between the parties in the shortest possible time and manner-The Act, 1964 has changed the forum and also altered the method as to how the trial under the Act, 1964 is to proceed and be decided---The aim and object of the Act, 1964 is to make provisions for the establishment of Family Courts for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith---In terms of 5.17(1) of the Act, 1964, the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, except Ss. 10 & 11, C.P.C., are not applicable to proceedings before any Family Court in respect of the matters stipulated in Part I of the Schedule to the Act, 1964 and, in terms of S.17-B, the Court may also issue a commission to (a) examine any person, (b) make a local investigation and (c) inspect any property or document--The duty of the Court while dealing with the issue of maintenance is to adopt an objective approach and broadly look into the social status of the parties, financial capability of the defendant and requirements of the minors-In the present case, in appeal filed by the petitioner (father/defendant), quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents was modified and reduced, however, said quantum was not exclusively based upon the additional documents submitted before the First Appellate Court, rather the Court itself, in order to reach a just conclusion, questioned the lady---In such circumstances, when the financial capability of the petitioner to have a monthly income of Rs. 200,000, as claimed by the lady, remained unsubstantiated, the modification could not be termed to be in conflict with the evidence on record, besides the financial status al status of the petitioner and, most importantly, the requirements of the minors-The proceedings in matters falling in Part I of the Schedule to the Act, 1964 are governed by the principles of equity, justice and fair play, therefore, the course adopted by the First Appellate Court could not be termed to be offensive to the scheme of the Act, 1964, the object of which is to minimize technicalities and bottlenecks for the purpose of speedy justice between the parties in the shortest possible time and manner-Besides, in terms of 5.17-B(c) of the Act, 1964, the Family Court may also issue a commission to inspect any document for determining the quantum of maintenance, keeping in view the needs of the minors and the financial status of the father--The objection to the procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court was accordingly repelled--The impugned judgments and decrees were well-reasoned, in accordance with law on the subject and reflected correct appreciation of the material facts brought on record through evidence by the parties, therefore, warranting no interference--Constitutional petition, filed by father/ex-husband, was dismissed.
Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal and others 2017 SCMR 321 and Farzana Rasool and 3 others v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir and others 2011 SCMR 1236 ref.
(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--
-S. 5 & Sched.-Suit filed by lady-Gold ornaments, entitlement to--Scope-Objection of the petitioner (ex-husband) was regarding holding the lady entitled to gold ornaments by the two Courts while placing reliance upon Mst. Humaira Wazir v. Muhammad Faisal and others (2025 SCMR 1003)-Held: In said referred case, the two Courts concluded that the allegation of snatching away of gold ornaments remained unproved--In the present case, the situation was altogether distinct as there were concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts in favour of the lady and not the petitioner, therefore, case-law relied upon by learned counsel did not extend any help to the petitioner due to having distinct facts and circumstances---Even otherwise, from evidence it emerged that the stance of the lady on this aspect had been consistent throughout, whereas the petitioner had taken divergent stances as, on the one one hand, he maintained that no gold ornaments were given to the lady from his side while, on the other hand, he admitted that gold ornaments were given by him and by his other family members as well-Besides, some of the gold ornaments were also returned at the time of collection of dowry articles from the house of the petitioner by his mother-Significantly, the parties were closely related inter se; the mother of the lady is the real sister of petitioner's father-The impugned judgments and decrees were well-reasoned, in accordance with law on the subject and reflected correct appreciation of the material aterial facts facts brought brought on on record record through throu evidence by the parties, therefore, warranting no interference---Constitutional petition,
Mst. Humaira Wazir v. Muhammad Faisal and others 2025 SCMR 1003 distinguished.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan-
Art. 199---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 14-Family case-Second appeal, absence of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, invocation of-Scope-The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the Legislature---If the law intended to provide two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so--In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the Appellate Court is considered final on facts and it is not for the e High High Court Court to to offer offer another opportunity of hearing. specially in family cases where the Legislature's intent not to prolong the dispute is clear-The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes---However, if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate Court orders under Art. 199 of the Constitution, it opens the floodgates of appellate litigation---To bring litigation to an end is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the Courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law---Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on facts by the Trial and Appellate Courts, Constitutional Courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the fa facts or sor substituting the Appellate Court's opinion with their own---Acceptance of the finality of the Appellate Court's findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings, conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation and upholding the Legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanisms---The impugned judgments and decrees were well-reasoned, in accordance with law on the subject and reflected correct appreciation of the material facts brought on record through evidence by the parties, therefore, warranting no interference-Constitutional petition, filed by father/ex-husband, was dismissed.
M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari and 2 others 2023 SCMR 1434 ref.
Shaukat Hussain Raja for Petitioner.