No, the Islamabad High Court has firmly ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate legal remedy to challenge an interim maintenance order, as such orders are temporary and can be reviewed in a final appeal.
Imagine being forced from your home, your belongings snatched, and left to raise three young children alone with no financial support from their father. This was the stark reality for a mother in Islamabad, who watched her husband leave for Saudi Arabia and then, silence. The silence wasn’t just emotional; it was financial. No money for food, for school, for doctor’s visits. Her only recourse was to knock on the doors of a Family Court, pleading for basic sustenance for her children. The court listened and granted interim maintenance—a temporary allowance. But the father challenged even this. His case went all the way to the Islamabad High Court, leading to a ruling that clarifies a critical point of law for countless families. This is the story of Mashab Ali vs. Learned Judge Family Court.
The story begins with a marriage in 2013, filled with the promises typical of a new union. There was a dower, or Mehr—a mandatory payment or promise from the groom to the bride in an Islamic marriage, set at Rs. 400,000, gold, and a house. There was a dowry, gifts from the bride’s parents, hoping to set up the couple’s new life. Three children were born, and for a time, life proceeded.
Then, in 2021, the protagonist of our story, Mashab Ali, the father and husband, left for Saudi Arabia for work. From the wife’s perspective, the support stopped. The money transfers never came. She alleged that when she asked for help, the response was violence. She claimed her in-laws, at her husband’s instigation, forcibly expelled her and the children from the marital home. The dowry articles and gold, her personal security, were snatched away. She was left with nothing but her three children and the burden of their survival.
With no other option, the mother, Respondent No. 2, filed a suit in the Family Court. She wasn’t just asking for ongoing maintenance; she sought recovery of the unpaid dower, her stolen dowry, and possession of the house promised to her. But most urgently, she needed immediate relief to feed and clothe her children while the main case dragged on. She asked the court for interim maintenance—a temporary financial order to cover basic living expenses until the final judgment is made.
The learned Family Judge examined the plea. He considered the children’s basic needs—food, clothing, education, healthcare. In an order dated December 7, 2024, he directed the father, Mashab Ali, to pay Rs. 12,000 per month for each of his three children. This was not the final word on the matter; it was a stopgap measure to prevent irreparable harm during the litigation.
Mashab Ali, the petitioner, was aggrieved. From his position in Saudi Arabia, he presented a different financial picture. He claimed he was not a wealthy expatriate but a laborer earning a modest 1,000 Saudi Riyals (approx. Rs. 74,000) per month. He argued that after his own rent and expenses abroad (Rs. 30,000) and sending money to his parents (another Rs. 30,000), he was left with only Rs. 14,000 for himself. Paying Rs. 36,000 for the children was, he contended, beyond his means and would cause him hardship. He was willing to pay Rs. 5,000 per child but found the court’s order unjust. Believing the order was against the law and facts, he bypassed the ongoing family court case and filed a Writ Petition directly in the Islamabad High Court.
A Writ Petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, is a powerful legal tool that allows a high court to review the actions of lower courts or public bodies if they act without lawful authority. It is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a regular appeal.
The central issue before Justice Muhammad Azam Khan was not whether Rs. 12,000 was too high or too low. The core legal question was far more procedural and fundamental: Is a writ petition the correct legal channel to challenge an interim maintenance order passed by a Family Court?
The arguments were set. The father’s counsel pleaded financial hardship and argued the order was beyond his client’s capacity. The mother’s counsel stood firm, highlighting the years of non-payment and the children’s dire need, arguing the Family Judge’s order was well-reasoned.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan’s ruling cut to the heart of the matter. The judgment delved into the intent of the law, specifically the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. This Act establishes specialized courts to handle family matters like divorce, maintenance, and child custody, with the goal of providing speedy and affordable justice.
The court highlighted a crucial detail in Section 14(3) of this Act. This section explicitly states that no appeal shall lie against an interim order. The legislature, in its wisdom, had deliberately designed the system this way. Why? To prevent exactly this kind of litigation. The purpose of an interim order is to provide immediate, temporary relief. Allowing appeals against every interim decision would bog down the judicial process, delaying the final resolution of the case for years.
The High Court explained that when a party rushes to challenge an interim order under its constitutional jurisdiction, it must exercise great restraint. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to correct every perceived error in a temporary order. The court made a vital distinction: a wrong order is not the same as an order passed “without jurisdiction.”
An order passed “without jurisdiction” means the court that issued it had no legal power or authority to do so in the first place. Only in such extreme cases should a high court intervene via a writ petition. In this case, the Family Judge had the full jurisdiction to award interim maintenance; the dispute was merely about the amount, which involved assessing facts and evidence.
Justice Khan emphasized that the determination of a maintenance amount is a fact-intensive inquiry. How much does school cost? What are the medical needs? What is the true income of the father? These are questions of fact best tackled by the Family Court, which can record evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make a final determination. A high court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, is not equipped to conduct this kind of mini-trial.
The proper path, the judgment clarified, is to let the Family Court case proceed to its conclusion. Once a final judgment is passed, the father has the full right to file a regular appeal. In that appeal, he can challenge every single aspect of the case, including the interim maintenance orders. The appellate court then acts as both a court of fact and law, and can thoroughly scrutinize any defects.
The court dismissed Mashab Ali’s writ petition, declaring it “misconceived and not maintainable.” The Rs. 12,000 per child interim maintenance order stood. The message was clear: the legal process must be respected. Temporary orders are just that—temporary. The place to fight about the final, fair amount of maintenance is in the main case and the subsequent appeal, not through a parallel constitutional challenge that derails the entire process.
For the mother and her children, this ruling meant that the financial lifeline, however temporary, would continue. It affirmed that the children’s immediate needs could not be put on hold while their father challenged procedural points. For the public, the judgment serves as a critical lesson in legal strategy and the hierarchy of remedies. It underscores that courts will prioritize the protection of vulnerable parties, especially children, from being starved into submission by protracted legal technicalities.
The door to justice was not closed to Mashab Ali; it was simply redirected to the proper forum. His day in court was not over, but his children’s today could not be sacrificed for it.
FAQs: Interim Maintenance Challenges in Pakistan
- What is an interim maintenance order?
An interim maintenance order is a temporary directive from a family court, requiring one spouse (usually the father) to provide financial support for the spouse and/or children during the ongoing divorce or maintenance case. It is meant to cover immediate, basic needs until a final decision is made. - Can I directly appeal an interim maintenance order in Pakistan?
No. According to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal can be filed directly against an interim order. The legislature intentionally designed this to prevent delays in the main court case. - What is the correct way to challenge an interim maintenance order?
The proper legal remedy is not a direct appeal but to continue with the main case in the Family Court. Once the Family Court gives its final judgment, you can file an appeal against that final decision. In that appeal, you can challenge all aspects, including the interim maintenance orders. - When can a writ petition challenge a family court order?
A writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy. It is typically only successful if you can prove the lower court acted “without jurisdiction”—meaning it had no legal authority to pass the order at all. Merely disagreeing with the amount of maintenance is not enough for a writ petition. - How do courts determine the amount of interim maintenance?
The court considers the basic needs of the children (or spouse), including food, clothing, education, and medical care, balanced against the alleged financial capacity of the parent responsible for paying. It is a preliminary assessment based on the available evidence, not a final, in-depth calculation.
Disclaimer
This blog is for public awareness only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on your situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.
This story is based on a real judgment passed by the Islamabad High Court in 2025.
