livelawpk.com - Interim Orders of Family Courts cannot be challenged ---

Interim Orders of Family Courts cannot be challenged through Writ Petitions as Appeals against such Orders are expressly barred u/s 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad

2 weeks, 5 days
47

Islamabad 14-03-2025: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed a Writ Petition filed by petitioner against an interim maintenance order issued by the Family Court, East-Islamabad. The Court ruled that interim orders of Family Courts cannot be challenged through Writ Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, as appeals against such orders are expressly barred under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

The case originated when the Family Court fixed an interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 12,000 per month for each of the three minor children of the Petitioner. Dissatisfied with the order, petitioner, who resides in Saudi Arabia as a laborer, challenged the decision, arguing that it exceeded his financial capacity and was passed without proper assessment of his earnings.

The Petitioner contended that his monthly income of 1,000 Saudi Riyals (Rs. 74,000) barely covered his living expenses and financial obligations, and that the Family Court relied on unsubstantiated claims of his financial status while determining the maintenance amount. He proposed paying Rs. 5,000 per child, which he deemed affordable.

On the other hand, the respondents (his wife and children) argued that he had failed to provide financial support since 2021 and that the Family Court’s order was justified given the financial needs of the children. They asserted that the petition was an attempt to evade legal responsibility.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, while dismissing the petition, reaffirmed the principle that interim maintenance orders are not subject to direct appeal under Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act. The Court emphasized that:

Islamabad High Court (IHC) cannot intervene unless an interim order is issued without jurisdiction.
The adequacy of maintenance requires factual inquiry and evidence, which must be assessed at the trial stage or in appeal, not through Constitutional Petitions.
Discretion exercised by the Family Court in determining interim maintenance cannot be overturned unless it is arbitrary or unlawful.

The Court cited multiple precedents, including Rashid Baig Vs. Muhammad Mansha (2024 SCMR 1385) and Shameneh Haider Vs. Haider Ali Khan (2018 CLC Note 43 Sindh), reinforcing that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge discretionary orders unless there is a jurisdictional defect.

The ruling aligns with established legal principles regarding family law jurisdiction and emphasizes that financial claims in maintenance cases should be decided through proper trial and appeal procedures. The case underscores the limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in family matters and serves as a guiding precedent for similar maintenance disputes.

The Writ Petition was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable, upholding the Family Court’s authority to determine interim maintenance without undue interference from the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The Petitioner was advised to pursue his grievance through proper Appellate channels.