Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1560
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan)
Parties: NAZIR AHMAD vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT ETC.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1560. In this matter between NAZIR AHMAD and JUDGE FAMILY COURT ETC., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan) DECISION DATE: 03-03-2026 TAGLINE: This Court reiterates that decrees awarding maintenance up to Rs.5,000 per month are non-appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (Amendment Act XI of 2015). Holds that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to defeat clear legislative intent. Where the father avoids his obligation, a financially sound grandfather cannot escape responsibility to prevent minors from being left destitute. CASE DETAILS: Writ Petition-Family-Maintenance 1132-26 ============================================================ Form No.HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Case No: W.P. No.1132 of 2026 Nazir Ahmad VS Judge Family Court, Khairpur Tamewali etc. S.No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary 03.03.2026 Mr. Muhammad Asif Mahmood Pirzada, Advocate for petitioner. Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Khairpur Tamewali whereby the suit instituted by respondents No.2 and 3 was decreed to the extent of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,500/ - per month for each minor, payable from the date of institution of the suit, however, the claim pertaining to past maintenance allowance was declined. The suit insofar as respondent No.4/defendant No.1 was concerned stood dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the grandfather of respondents No.2 and 3 (minors) bears no legal obligation to maintain them as the primary responsibility squarely rests upon their father, respondent No.4/defendant No.1. Further argues that the liability of a grandfather arises only where the father is deceased or wholly incapacitated which is not the case here. Further avers that an earlier decree for maintenance had already been passed against respondent No.4, who has even undergone imprisonment pursuant to earlier proceedings , therefore, a subsequent suit against the present petitioner was not maintainable in the presence of the said decree. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. It is an admitted position that respondent No.4 /father of the minors has shifted to Saudi Arabia and is not maintaining his minor children. The minors, therefore, cannot be left at the mercy W.P. No.1132/2026 2
of society or exposed to hardship particularly when their mother has demonstrated her inability to maintain them independently. The paramount consideration in matters relating to maintenance is the welfare and survival of the minors who constitute the most vulnerable segment of society. 5. From the statement of the petitioner, who appeared as DW-1 it emerges that he enjoys a sound financial position and owns Grain Grinding Machines (Aatta Chakkis). During cross - examination, he candidly admitted that he had contested earlier litigation regarding dowry articles on behalf of his son before both the learned trial court and the appellate court. He further acknowledged that he and his son were residing jointly, had engaged the same counsel and had filed a joint written statement in the previous proceedings . In that case he had also admitted ownership of two Grain Grinding Machines. The evidence on record thus establishes not only his financial capacity but also his close and continuing association with his son. 6. Where the father, though alive, has absent ed himself and failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor children and where the grandfather is financially sound and capable, the law does not allow a situation in which minors are left destitute. In such circumstances, the a scendant possessed of sufficient means cannot escape responsibility. The minors cannot be rendered helpless merely on account of the father’s deliberate avoidance. 7. It is significant to note that the maintenance so granted does not fall within the purvi ew of Section 14(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (Amendment Act XI of 2015), which bars an appeal where the maintenance allowance does not exceed Rs.5,000/- per month. For ease of reference Section 14 of the Act ibid is reproduced below:- “S. 14. Appeal .-[(1) Notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for the time being in force, a decision given or a decree passed by a Family Court shall be appealable- (a) to the High Court, where the Family Court is presided over by a District Judge, an Additional District W.P. No.1132/2026 3
Judge, or a person notified by Government to be of the rank and status of a District Judge or an Additional District Judge.] (b) [to the District Court, in any other case.] (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree by a Family Court- (a) for dissolution of marriage, except in the case of dissolution for reasons specified in clause (d) of item (viii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, (b) for dower [or dowry] not exceeding rupees [thirty thousand]; (c) for maintenance of rupees [One thousand] or less per month . Punjab amendment: Subsection (2) in clause (b), for the word "thirty thousand” the words "one hundred thousand" s ubstituted, and (b) "one thousands” the words " five thousand " substituted by Family Courts (Amendment) Act 2015 (XI of 2015). [(3) No appeal or revision shall lie against an interim order passed by a Family Court. (4) The appellate Court referred to in s ub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal within a period of four months.]” (Emphasis Supplied) From the bare reading of above reproduced section, it demonstrates that no appeal shall lie from a decree of a Family Court for maintenance of rupees five thou sand or less per month. Furthermore, sub -section (3) of Section 14 of the Act ibid expressly prohibits any appeal against an interim order. The legislative intent is manifest ; to protect weaker segments of society particularly women and children from protracted litigation and to ensure expeditious and final determination of modest maintenance claims. 8. Entertaining a constitutional petition in matters consciously excluded from the sphere of appeal by the legislature amounts to going against the inten t and intention of the law - makers, who have deliberately curtailed appellate remedies in such cases to support minors and females. Filing and prosecuting constitutional petitions in cases which do not fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act ibid is a practice which deserves to be deprecated and discouraged. In the smooth administration of justice, no one can be permitted to create hindrance in the due course of law by adopting indirect methods to challenge decrees that have been rendered final by statutory command. W.P. No.1132/2026 4
9. Courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction are always reluctant to interfere in decisions made under special statutes, particularly where no exceptional circumstances exist. Even otherwise, t his Court does not sit as a Court of appea l to reappraise evidence or substitute its own findings unless a jurisdictional defect, patent illegality, material irregularity or manifest perversity is demonstrated. The learned Judge Family Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence granted a mod est maintenance allowance of Rs.3,500/ - per month to each minor. The amount awarded is modest and commensurate with the circumstances brought on record. No legal infirmity, jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice has been shown that would warrant interference with such determination. 10. The present petition appears to be an attempt to circumvent the legislative scheme and to prolong litigation in a matter concerning a meagre maintenance amount awarded to minors. Such attempts, if entertained, would defeat the object and wisdom of the legislature and undermine the protective framework envisaged for vulnerable litigants. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the absence of any substantiated ground for interference, the pres ent constitutional petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN) JUDGE Signed on __.03.2026 *Sadheer Ahmad*
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE