1

IN THE COURT OF SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL DOGAR,

DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDI BAHAUDDIN.

Family Appeal No.18/2024.

Date of Filing.20-02-2024.
Date of Decision.03-04-2024.

1). Irfan Ali, (Appellant).

Versus
Mst. Ghulam Sakeena, (Respondent).

FAMILY APPEAL.
Family Appeal No.19/2024.
Date of Filing.23-02-2024.
Date of Decision.03-04-2024.

2). Mst. Ghulam Sakeena, etc, (Appellants).

Versus
Irfan Ali, (Respondent).

FAMILY APPEAL.

Present:- Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Mangat Advocate for the appellant.

Mian Muhammad Akhtar Advocate for the respondent.

Judgment
This judgment shall dispose of both the above mentioned
family appeals arising-out of one and the same judgment and decree
dated 23-01-2024 authored by Mrs. Mehar-un-Nisa, the then learned
Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), M.B.Din, whereby respondents’
suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was partially decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience for disposal of these family
appeals, Irfan Ali shall hereinafter be referred as the appellant while
Mst. Ghulam Sakeena and another shall hereinafter be referred as the
respondents.
3. Briefly, facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are
that the respondents filed a suit for dissolution of marriage as well as for
recovery of maintenance allowance against the appellant, which was
contested by him by filing his written-statement. The learned trial Court
decreed the suit to the extent of dissolution of marriage on the ground
of Khula vide order dated 16-03-2023 and to the extent of remaining
claim framed the following issues keeping in view the divergent
pleadings of the parties:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance
allowance, if so, at what rate and for what period?
OPP
 2

2. Whether the suit is false on the ground mentioned in

the written statement? OPD
3. Relief.
4. In support of her claim, Mst. Ghulam Sakeena respondent
herself appeared as Pw-1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.P-1. She
produced Pw-2 Shamraiz Iqbal and Pw-3 Zafar Iqbal, who tendered
their affidavits as Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3. In documentary evidence, she
produced Birth Registration Certificate as Mark-A and copy of order of
the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore as Mark-B.
5. On the other hand, Ehsan Ali, special attorney of the
appellant, appeared as Dw-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.D-1. Dw-1
submitted his special attorney-deed as Ex.D-2. He produced Dw-2
Muhammad Asif, who tendered his affidavit as Ex.D-3. In documentary
evidence, appellant produced copy of petition u/s 491 Cr.P.C alongwith
its order as Mark-DA.
6. The learned trial Court after recording pro and contra
evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties partially
decreed the respondents’ suit in a manner that an amount of
Rs.15,000/- is fixed as maintenance allowance of the minor plaintiff
No.2 since January-2022 till attaining the age of majority with 10%
annual enhancement while claim of the plaintiff No.1 for recovery of
maintenance allowance stood dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 23-01-2024.
7. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 23-01-2024, both the parties have filed their separate appeals
with their respective claims and prayers.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. The stance of the respondent lady is that she was married
to the appellant on 24-12-2018, settled with him in his house and
started to perform her matrimonial obligations, out of said wedlock,
minor respondent No.2 was born on 03-07-2020; that about 01 ½ years
ago, appellant snatched the custody of the minor respondent No.2 and
expelled her from his house empty handed; that she received back
custody of the minor respondent No.2 through order of the Hon’ble
Lahore High Court, Lahore about one year ago and now the minor
respondent No.2 is residing with her; that the respondent has been
residing abroad to earn his livelihood and his monthly income is
Rs.5,00,000/-, besides it he is also owner of agricultural land in
Pakistan coupled with keeping cattles in large number earning
 3

handsome income and as such, he can easily pay the claimed

maintenance allowance to the respondents.
10. On the other hand, the stance of the appellant is that the
respondent left the minor in the hospital and since then till 21-12-2022,
minor remained in his custody and he brought-up the minor; that the
respondent lady filed a petition u/s 491 Cr.P.C in Sessions Court,
M.B.Din for custody of the minor, which was dismissed on 26-10-2022;
that he is doing labour in foreign country and has been earning
Rs.35/40,000/- per month after excluding expenses and as such, he
cannot pay the claimed maintenance allowance to the respondents.
11. In evidence, Pw-1 respondent Mst. Ghulam Sakeena in
her cross-examination stated that “it is correct that my marriage and
marriage of my brother was result of an exchange marriage. Mst. Aziz
Fatima was my Bhabhi, who was sister of defendant. Mst. Aziz Fatima
had died. It is correct that we did not file any suit in the life of Mst. Aziz
Fatima. It is correct that there are two sons of Mst. Aziz Fatima. It is
correct that she filed a petition u/s 491 Cr.P.C for custody of the minor
Muhammad Shawaiz in the Court of Mr. Nusrat Ali Siddiqui, learned
ASJ, M.B.Din against Mst. Kishwar, etc. Mst. Kishwar is Bhabhi of Irfan.
Muhammad Shawaiz was born in Shatak Hospital. It is correct that
learned ASJ M.B.Din while dismissing my petition u/s 491 Cr.P.C
handed over custody of the minor to Mst. Kishwar. It is correct that I
have obtained divorce from Irfan with my free will and consent because
I did not want to live with Irfan. It is correct that since birth till handing
over of his custody to me through the order of the Hon’ble Lahore High
Court, Lahore, minor remained in custody of Mst. Kishwar Bibi”. Pw-3
Zafar Iqbal in his cross-examination stated that “it is correct that minor
was born in Shatak Hospital. It is correct that plaintiff went to the house
of her parents after giving minor Muhammad Shawaiz to Mst. Kishwar
in hospital”. On the other hand, Dw-1 Ehsan Ali, special attorney of the
appellant, stated in his cross-examination that “my brother Irfan Ali
defendant has been residing in Saudi Arabia to earn his livelihood for
the last seven years. It is correct that Irfan neither contracted second
marriage nor have any issue except plaintiff No.2. We have started
construction of our new house. It is correct that we have purchased
further land for construction of new house from Ejaz Lohar. It is correct
that the custody of minor Muhammad Shawaiz obtained by plaintiff from
defendant though the order of Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore. It is
correct that inflation is at its peak”. Dw-2 Muhammad Asif in his cross-
 4

examination stated that “Ehsan, special attorney is my Behnoi. Irfan Ali

and Ehsan are settled abroad for the last 07/08 to earn their livelihood.
It is correct that defendant has constructed his new house and has also
shifted in said house. It is correct that inflation is at its peak now-a-days.
It is correct that minor Shawaiz was sick and now he is healthy”.
12. The counter-contentions of the parties coupled with pro
and contra evidence go to suggest that admittedly minor respondent
No.2 Muhammad Shawaiz since his birth was residing in the custody of
Mst. Kishwar Bibi till handing over of his custody to the respondent lady
under the orders of the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore on
14-12-2022 (Mark-B). Moreover, the nuptial knot of the respondent lady
with appellant has been set at naught as a result of divorce, so she is
no more wed-wife of the appellant. It is the divine dictate that “separate
your wives with Ehsan”. The respondent lady is ex-wife of the appellant
while respondent No.2 is minor son of the appellant and as such, he is
legally and morally duty bound to provide maintenance allowance for
Iddat period to his divorcee-wife and maintenance allowance to his
minor son w.e.f 14-12-2022 till his legal entitlement.
13. Insofar as quantum of maintenance allowance is
concerned, admittedly the appellant has been residing in Saudi Arabia
for the last 07/08 years and as such, he must have been enjoying
sound financial stature. Admittedly, the minor is now in the age of
school going boy and respondent has to bear his educational expenses
alongwith his daily needs. Hence, keeping in view the daily
requirements of grown-up minor and day-by-day rising inflation in the
country, it is concluded that the quantum of maintenance allowance
assessed and determined by the learned trial Court is quite adequate
and does not call for any increase or decrease. Hence, the findings of
the learned trial Court on issue No.1 are modified in a manner that the
respondent No.1 is entitled to receive maintenance allowance @
Rs.15,000/- per month (total Rs.45,000/-) for her Iddat period while
minor respondent No.2 is entitled to receive maintenance allowance @
Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f 14-12-2022 with 10% per annum increase
till his legal entitlement from the appellant.
14. In view of above discussion, family appeal titled “Irfan Ali
versus Mst. Ghulam Sakeena” mentioned at serial No.1 stands
dismissed while family appeal titled “Mst. Ghulam Sakeena, etc
versus Irfan Ali” stands partially accepted and the impugned
judgment and decree dated 23-01-2024 is partially modified in a
 5

manner that the respondent No.1 is entitled to receive maintenance

allowance @ Rs.15,000/- per month (total Rs.45,000/-) for her Iddat
period while minor respondent No.2 is entitled to receive maintenance
allowance @ Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f 14-12-2022 with 10% per
annum increase till his legal entitlement from the appellant. There is no
order as to costs. Decree-sheets be drawn accordingly. Record of this
Court be consigned to the record room and that of the learned trial
Court alongwith copy of this judgment be returned, immediately.
Announced.

(Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Dogar)

03-04-2024. District Judge, M.B.Din.

Certified that this judgment consists of 05 pages, which have been

dictated, read, corrected and signed by me.

Dated:03-04-2024. District Judge, M.B.Din.

6