ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that the amount of maintenance (nafaqa) payable for a minor child must be determined by considering the child’s reasonable needs as well as the father’s financial capacity, income, and social status.
The court further held that higher courts should interfere with maintenance amounts fixed by lower courts only when the decision is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
The ruling was issued by a two-member bench comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, which dismissed a petition seeking leave to appeal and upheld the judgment of the Sindh High Court.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ms. Shaheen Nawaz, argued before the Supreme Court that the child’s father was employed as a manager at a textile company in Bangladesh and earned a substantial salary. She requested the court to increase the child’s monthly maintenance allowance to Rs40,000.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the District Judge, while deciding the appeal against the Family Court’s order, had already fixed the monthly maintenance at Rs30,000 and directed that it be increased by 15 percent annually. The Sindh High Court subsequently upheld that decision.
Court’s Observations
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court observed that both the appellate court and the High Court had carefully examined the father’s income, financial resources, other family obligations, and the child’s needs before determining the maintenance amount.
The court also took note that the father is responsible for supporting two other children from his first marriage, which was a relevant factor in assessing his overall financial obligations.
Legal Principles
Referring to its recent judgment in Muhammad Imran Baqar v. Ms. Zarnain Arzoo (PLD 2026 SC 170), the Supreme Court reiterated that a father has both a legal and moral duty to maintain his children.
However, the court clarified that the amount of maintenance should be based on a balanced assessment of:
- The child’s genuine and reasonable needs.
- The father’s financial means and earning capacity.
- His overall responsibilities and obligations.
- The family’s social and economic circumstances.
Appeal Dismissed
The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal error, misreading of evidence, or misuse of judicial discretion by the lower courts.
It therefore held that there was no justification for interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, leaving the Sindh High Court’s judgment intact.
The decision reinforces the principle that maintenance awards should be determined on the basis of both the welfare of the child and the paying parent’s financial ability, with appellate intervention limited to cases involving clear legal or factual error.
About The Author
