Supreme Court will not usually disturb the amount of child maintenance fixed by the courts below

Judgment at a glance

Legal issue

Can the Supreme Court raise a child's maintenance where the appellate court and the High Court have both fixed the amount after assessing the father's means?

Decision

No, not on these facts. The mother sought Rs. 40,000 a month for the minor. The trial court fixed Rs. 15,000 with a 10% annual increase; the appellate court raised it to Rs. 30,000 with a 15% annual increase, and the High Court upheld that. The mother argued that the father was a manager at a textile company in Bangladesh with a substantial salary. The Supreme Court noted that the amount had been fixed after assessing his financial status, earning capacity and resources, as well as his duty to maintain two other children from his first wife. These were findings of fact. Superior courts usually do not reassess the amount where it rests on a realistic view of the father's earning capacity, socio-economic position and the minor's genuine needs; they interfere only if it is manifestly arbitrary, excessive or grossly inadequate. Following Muhammad Imran Baqir v. Mst. Zarnain Arzoo (PLD 2026 SC 170), and finding no perversity or jurisdictional defect, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.

Key principle

Child maintenance depends on the child's reasonable needs and the father's earning capacity, status and other financial liabilities; concurrent findings on the amount stand unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary, excessive or grossly inadequate.

Outcome

Dismissed

Relevant law

Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 185(3)

Why it matters

• The time to prove a father's income is at trial; it is much harder to change the amount later.
• Courts can take into account a father's duty to support other children.
• A challenge to the amount in the Supreme Court needs more than a claim that it is too low.

Cite as: Mst. Shaheen Nawaz v. Raheel Khan and another, Supreme Court of Pakistan, C.P.L.A. No. 316-K of 2026, decided 30 July 2026

Copy citation Print summary