Skip to content
Mon–Sat, 9:00 AM – 10:00 PM0331 9999 129 Book a consultation

Home » Judgments » Lahore High Court

In children’s maintenance the court must find the facts itself, including who should pay

Muhammad Saeed v. Judge Family Court, etc. Lahore High Court W.P. No. 26445 of 2022 2026 LHC 1151; PLJ 2026 Lahore 260; PLD 2026 Lahore 767 Decided Justice Asim Hafeez (Lahore)

Judgment at a glance

Legal issue
Could a paternal uncle be held liable to maintain his late brother's child, where the suit was brought against the grandfather, who died during the case, and the uncle had received part of the grandfather's property?
Decision
The decree was set aside and the appeal sent back. Nothing in sections 5 and 17-A or the Schedule of the Family Courts Act confines liability for a child's maintenance to the father; who the defendant should be depends on the facts, and Mahnoor Shabbir (2024 CLC 513) was held per incuriam on this point. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 2024 SC 67) did not apply because the grandfather had been sued. The evidence showed the grandfather was a man of means who had paid interim maintenance, and the mother alleged that part of his property was transferred to the uncle by gift (hiba) while the suit was pending; whether that transfer was genuine or meant to defeat the children's claim had not been considered. Declining to decide the uncle's own liability, the Court remanded the appeal, with liberty to lead additional evidence.
Key principle
In children's maintenance the Family Court acts inquisitorially and is not confined to the father as defendant; where a liable relative's property is transferred during the suit, the court must examine whether the transfer was bona fide or meant to defeat the minors' claim.
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Relevant law
Family Courts Act 1964, s.5; Family Courts Act 1964, s.17-A; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199
Why it matters
  • Courts should look actively for the person able to pay, not just the named defendant.
  • Property transfers within the family during a maintenance case can be examined.
  • An uncle's liability is not automatic; it depends on the facts and the law applied to them.

Cite as: Muhammad Saeed v. Judge Family Court, etc., 2026 LHC 1151, PLJ 2026 Lahore 260, PLD 2026 Lahore 767, Lahore High Court, W.P. No. 26445 of 2022, decided 10 February 2026

Case details

Case
Muhammad Saeed v. Judge Family Court, etc.
Bench
Justice Asim Hafeez (Lahore)
Date of decision
Case number
W.P. No. 26445 of 2022
Citation
2026 LHC 1151; PLJ 2026 Lahore 260; PLD 2026 Lahore 767
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Statutes considered
Family Courts Act 1964, s.5; Family Courts Act 1964, s.17-A; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199

Sources

Our saved copy
PDF, saved
How this summary was made
Summary from the full judgment
Official text read on
Note on the text
The maintenance suit was filed in 2019 against the paternal grandfather, who died during the proceedings and is represented by his heirs; one minor has since come of age. The courts below decreed maintenance against the uncle for the remaining minor, relying on para 373 of Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law. The appellate decree dated 19 February 2022 was set aside. The gift deed in question is No. 3332 of 16 October 2019. Order dated 10 February 2026; approved for reporting. Short summary checked against the order.
Cite this summary
PK-Legal & Associates, "In children’s maintenance the court must find the facts itself, including who should pay", summary of Muhammad Saeed v. Judge Family Court, etc., 2026 LHC 1151, PLJ 2026 Lahore 260, PLD 2026 Lahore 767, Lahore High Court, W.P. No. 26445 of 2022, decided 10 February 2026, https://pklegal.org/judgments/lhc-2026-1151-maintenance-inquisitorial/ (reviewed 3 November 2026).