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

Home » Judgments » Lahore High Court

Parents cannot bargain away a child’s independent right to maintenance

Mst. Shazia Naureen, etc. v. District Judge, etc. Lahore High Court W.P. No. 39297 of 2026 2026 LHC 6427 Decided Justice Muhammad Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema (Lahore)

Judgment at a glance

Legal issue
Can a mother, as guardian, agree to reduced maintenance for her children, and can a Family Court fix the children's maintenance solely on that consenting statement?
Decision
No to both. A child's right to maintenance belongs to the child, not the parent; a guardian cannot waive, reduce or surrender it, and any agreement doing so is void against the minor. A compromise on a minor's behalf needs the court's leave (principles of Order XXXII CPC), and the Family Court must independently assess the children's needs and welfare and the father's means and status. Both decrees fixing Rs. 30,000 per child on the mother's statement were set aside and the case remanded.
Key principle
A minor's right to maintenance is the child's own and cannot be compromised or waived by a parent or guardian; a Family Court may not fix a child's maintenance solely on the parents' consent but must independently assess the child's needs and welfare and the father's financial capacity and social status, applying the principles of Order XXXII CPC to any compromise.
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Relevant law
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, O.XXXII; Family Courts Act 1964, s.17; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199
Why it matters
  • A parent's agreement to accept less maintenance for a child does not bind the child; the court must check what the child actually needs and what the father can pay.
  • A mother acting for her children cannot give up their maintenance in a deal about her own claims.

Cite as: Mst. Shazia Naureen, etc. v. District Judge, etc., 2026 LHC 6427, Lahore High Court, W.P. No. 39297 of 2026, decided 23 September 2026

Facts

From the judgment

In an earlier suit decreed on 12 June 2012, the children's maintenance had been fixed at Rs. 50,000 a month per child with a 10% yearly increase. (para 3)

In later proceedings the mother stated on oath that she accepted Rs. 30,000 a month per child, and also abandoned her claims for delivery charges and dowry articles; the Family Court fixed future maintenance on that basis on 24 January 2026 without examining the children's needs or the father's means. (paras 2, 7)

The District Judge, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal on 26 March 2026, treating the mother's statement as voluntary. The daughter, through her mother, then petitioned the High Court. (paras 2-3, 6)

Procedural history

From the judgment

  1. 12 June 2012Earlier maintenance suit, Family CourtRs. 50,000 a month per child with 10% annual increase (para 3)
  2. 24 January 2026Maintenance proceedings (consenting statement of the mother), Family CourtMaintenance fixed at Rs. 30,000 a month per child on the mother's statement (para 2, 7)
  3. 26 March 2026Family appeal, District Judge, SargodhaDismissed (statement voluntary) (para 2-3)
  4. Heard 23 September 2026W.P. No. 39297 of 2026, Lahore High Court, LahoreAllowed; both decrees set aside; remanded for fresh determination of the children's maintenance (para 13)

Questions of law

  1. Can the parents or guardian of a minor lawfully waive, surrender, relinquish, renounce or abandon the child's maintenance through a private agreement, out-of-court settlement, compromise or consenting statement in court? Framed by the court

    The court's answer: No. The right belongs to the child; the guardian has no authority to waive or diminish it, and any such arrangement is void and unenforceable against the minor. (para 6, 8)

  2. Can a Family Court rely solely on such an agreement or consenting statement to fix maintenance, without independently assessing the minor's welfare and needs and the father's financial capability and social status? Framed by the court

    The court's answer: No. The Family Court must independently assess those matters and record that any compromise is in the child's best interest; mere reliance on parental consent is an abdication of its duty. (para 6, 9, 11)

Arguments

From the judgment

Petitioner or appellant

Maintenance was fixed solely on the mother's statement, without assessing the children's needs and welfare or the father's means and status; an earlier decree of 2012 had fixed Rs. 50,000 per child with 10% annual increases, and the mother gave the adverse statement without leave of the court; the appellate court upheld the decree perfunctorily (para 3).

Respondent

The parents had settled the matter by statements on oath before a competent court, so it was logical to fix maintenance as agreed; having voluntarily accepted the amount and testified, the mother could not resile, and challenging it amounted to approbating and reprobating (para 4).

Court's reasoning

From the judgment

The child's own right

Children are people today with a right to be taken seriously (Muhammad Asif v. Sana Sattar, PLD 2026 SC 238). Maintenance of a child is the father's continuing legal, moral and religious obligation (Imran Baqir, PLD 2026 SC 170; Humayun Hassan, PLD 2013 SC 557). The right belongs to the minor, not the parent; a mother acting as guardian or next friend does not own it and cannot waive, surrender or diminish it. Any agreement to do so is void and unenforceable against the minor. (para 6, 8)

The Family Court's duty

Family Courts exist for children's welfare and must independently decide whether parental arrangements serve the child's needs and interests, recording that any compromise is beneficial and in the child's best interest. Simply relying on parental consent is an abdication of duty; children's rights cannot be held hostage to adults' disputes (Muhammad Shahzad, 2026 SCMR 1401). (para 9)

Order XXXII CPC principles

Although the Code of Civil Procedure mostly does not apply in Family Courts (section 17; Arif Fareed, 2023 SCMR 413), its principles may be borrowed to protect minors. Under Order XXXII no compromise can be made on a minor's behalf by a guardian without the court's leave (Amjad Khan Afridi, PLD 2022 SC 27); without leave it is void against the minor. Maintenance had to be fixed on an independent assessment, uninfluenced by the consenting statement (Muhammad Asim, PLD 2018 SC 819). (para 10-11)

Applied here

The Family Court fixed future maintenance purely on the parents' statements, without asking about the children's needs or the father's means. The mother's statement depriving the child of maintenance was plainly illegal; parents may agree between themselves but cannot bargain away what belongs to their child. (para 7, 12)

Result

The petition was allowed, both decrees were set aside and the case remanded to the Family Court to decide the children's maintenance afresh, considering their needs, interests and welfare and the father's financial capability and social status. (para 13)

Judicial observations

From the judgment

The court's exact words.

Right of maintenance belongs to the minor and not to the parent or guardian.

Para 8

Parents may agree between themselves but they cannot bargain away what belongs to their child.

Para 12

In matters of maintenance, the child's welfare must speak louder than parental consent.

Para 12

Case details

Case
Mst. Shazia Naureen, etc. v. District Judge, etc.
Bench
Justice Muhammad Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema (Lahore)
Date of decision
Case number
W.P. No. 39297 of 2026
Citation
2026 LHC 6427
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Statutes considered
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, O.XXXII; Family Courts Act 1964, s.17; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199

Practical implications

Our analysis

For lawyers

  • Do not settle a child's maintenance as part of a bargain over the mother's own claims; keep the child's claim separate and seek the court's leave for any compromise affecting the minor.
  • Ask the Family Court to record findings on the child's needs (schooling, health, living costs) and the father's income and status, even where the parents agree a figure.
  • If a maintenance decree rests only on a parent's consenting statement, it is open to challenge on behalf of the child under this judgment.
  • Put the history of earlier maintenance awards on record; here an earlier Rs. 50,000 award showed the reduced figure was against the children's interest.

For everyone else

  • Your child's maintenance belongs to the child. A parent cannot give it up or accept less in a deal with the other parent.
  • Even if both parents agree an amount, the Family Court must check that it meets the child's needs and fits what the father can afford.

General points drawn from this judgment, not advice on your own case.

Limits of this judgment

Our analysis

  • The High Court did not fix a new amount; the Family Court must decide afresh on remand.
  • The judgment concerns the children's maintenance; it did not decide the mother's own abandoned claims (delivery charges, dowry articles).

Questions about this case

Can a mother agree to less maintenance for her children?

Not so as to bind the children. The Court held that the right belongs to the child and any agreement waiving or diminishing it is void against the minor (para 8).

Can the court just accept the amount the parents agree?

No. It must independently assess the child's needs and welfare and the father's financial capability and social status, and record that any compromise is in the child's best interest (paras 9, 11).

What is Order XXXII CPC doing in a family case?

Its principle, that no compromise can be made on a minor's behalf without the court's leave, may be borrowed in family cases to protect children (paras 10-11).

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 judgment gives the date of hearing as 23 September 2026 and no separate announcement date, so the date of decision shown is the date of hearing. Approved for reporting. The citation 2026 LHC 6427 is the court's own, from its judgment address. Names are spelled as in the judgment ('Naureen').
Cite this summary
PK-Legal & Associates, "Parents cannot bargain away a child’s independent right to maintenance", summary of Mst. Shazia Naureen, etc. v. District Judge, etc., 2026 LHC 6427, Lahore High Court, W.P. No. 39297 of 2026, decided 23 September 2026, https://pklegal.org/judgments/lhc-2026-6427-child-maintenance-waiver/ (reviewed 3 November 2026).