Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Suit For The Recovery of Maintenance Allowance

    Uploaded by

    Amina Aamer
    The plaintiffs (Mst. Faiza Khan and her minor son Imran Khan) have filed a suit against the defendant (Sattar Khan) for recovery of maintenance allowance. Mst. Faiza Khan and Sattar Khan were married in 1996 according to Muslim rites and had one son, Imran Khan, together. However, relations soured and Sattar Khan turned Mst. Faiza Khan out of the house. Sattar Khan, who works as an engineer earning Rs. 25,000 per month, has failed to pay any maintenance to support Mst. Faiza Khan and Imran Khan. Mst. Faiza Khan claims Rs. 10,000 per month and Imran Khan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Suit For The Recovery of Maintenance Allowance

    Uploaded by

    Amina Aamer
    1K views2 pages
    The plaintiffs (Mst. Faiza Khan and her minor son Imran Khan) have filed a suit against the defendant (Sattar Khan) for recovery of maintenance allowance. Mst. Faiza Khan and Sattar Khan were married in 1996 according to Muslim rites and had one son, Imran Khan, together. However, relations soured and Sattar Khan turned Mst. Faiza Khan out of the house. Sattar Khan, who works as an engineer earning Rs. 25,000 per month, has failed to pay any maintenance to support Mst. Faiza Khan and Imran Khan. Mst. Faiza Khan claims Rs. 10,000 per month and Imran Khan

    Original Title

    Suit for the Recovery of Maintenance Allowance (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs (Mst. Faiza Khan and her minor son Imran Khan) have filed a suit against the defendant (Sattar Khan) for recovery of maintenance allowance. Mst. Faiza Khan and Sattar Khan were married in 1996 according to Muslim rites and had one son, Imran Khan, together. However, relations soured and Sattar Khan turned Mst. Faiza Khan out of the house. Sattar Khan, who works as an engineer earning Rs. 25,000 per month, has failed to pay any maintenance to support Mst. Faiza Khan and Imran Khan. Mst. Faiza Khan claims Rs. 10,000 per month and Imran Khan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Suit For The Recovery of Maintenance Allowance

    Uploaded by

    Amina Aamer
    The plaintiffs (Mst. Faiza Khan and her minor son Imran Khan) have filed a suit against the defendant (Sattar Khan) for recovery of maintenance allowance. Mst. Faiza Khan and Sattar Khan were married in 1996 according to Muslim rites and had one son, Imran Khan, together. However, relations soured and Sattar Khan turned Mst. Faiza Khan out of the house. Sattar Khan, who works as an engineer earning Rs. 25,000 per month, has failed to pay any maintenance to support Mst. Faiza Khan and Imran Khan. Mst. Faiza Khan claims Rs. 10,000 per month and Imran Khan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    In the Court of Senior Civil Judge with powers of Judge Family Court, 

    Lahore

    1.      Mst. Faiza Khan D/o. Adbul Rehim, Caste Rajput, resident of 13 – Bund Road,
    Lahore.

    2.      Imran Khan S/o. Sattar Khan, Caste Rajput, resident of 98 – Bund Road, Lahore.

    Minor through Mst. Faiza Khan, Plaintiff No. 1 as next friend      (Plaintiffs)

    Versus

    Sattar Khan S/o. Muhammad Ahmad, Caste Rajput, resident of 40 – Jail
    Road, Lahore.                                                                                               (Defendant)

    Suit for the recovery of Maintenance Allowance

    Respectfully Sheweth:---

    1.            That plaintiff no. 1 was married to the defendant at Lahore on March 07, 1996, in
    accordance with Muslim Rites. The marriage was duly registered under the Muslim
    Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Out of this wedlock plaintiff no. 2 was born on June 07,
    1997.

    2.            That plaintiff no. 2 is a minor and is suing through plaintiff no. 1 who is his real mother
    and has got no adverse interest against the minor plaintiff.

    3.            That some time after the marriage, the relation between the parties became strained.
    However, plaintiff no. 1 tolerated obnoxious (offensive) treatment meted out to plaintiff
    no. 1 at the hands of the defendant, so that their family life may have smooth sailing. The
    defendant did not care for that and continued his obnoxious treatment towards the
    plaintiff and eventually turned out the plaintiff from his house where after the plaintiff
    has been living with the parents of plaintiff no. 1.

    4.            That the defendant has completely neglected plaintiffs and has completely failed to pay
    any maintenance allowance to them.

    The defendant has no other liability except the liability of maintaining the plaintiffs. The
    defendant is an Engineer and his presently working as an executive engineer in the
    Irrigation Department of the Government of the Punjab and he is drawing salary Rs.
    25,000/- per month.

    5.            That plaintiff no. 1 is M. A. English and belongs to respectable family of Lahore enjoying
    very high social status. She claims a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as her maintenance
    allowance. Plaintiff no. 2 claims a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as his maintenance
    allowance.

    6.            That the defendant was requested to pay the maintenance allowance to the plaintiff at the
    aforesaid rates but he was flatly refused to pay the same. Hence this suit.
    7.            That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as this
    refusal to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs.

    8.            That the parties reside at Lahore therefore, the family Court at Lahore have jurisdiction to
    try the present suit.

    9.            That the prescribed Court fee of Rs. 15/- has been paid.

    It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree for the past as well as future maintenance
    at the aforesaid rate may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant with
    cost.
     
      Plaintiff
    Through  
      Counsel

    Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on this 1 st day of February 1999, that the contents of
    paragraphs no. 1 to 6 of the plaint are true to the best of my knowledge and those of paragraph
    no. 7 to 9 are believed to be correct on information received therefrom.

    Plaintiff

    You might also like