Suit For Recovery of Maintenance Allowance in Law
Family Case No:/2020
1.Mst. Saima Batool Daughter of Ch, Buland Akhter Lahore.
2.Muhammad Naeem son of Rafique R/O Lahore
1.Rana Muhammad Naeem son of Qaseem Rana Quaid-e-Azam Town, Lahore
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE
1.That the addresses of the parties are correct for summoning/notices for this Honorable Court and today is fixed.
2.That the instant family suit is that the plaintiff No. 1 was married with defendant No. 1 on 21.02.2003 in accordance with the Muslim Rites. It is pertinent to mentioned here that at the time of marriage the parents of plaintiff No. 1 gave some precious and valuable dowry articles and gold ornaments, which are in the illegal custody of the defendant, so the plaintiff No.1 reserved her rights to file the separate suit for recovery of said articles. Copy of Nikahnama is attached.
3.That out of the wedlock three children plaintiff No. 2 and 3 was born, the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 residing with the plaintiff and minor Abdul Rasheed is the custody of defendant.
4.That from the very beginning of marriage, it transpired upon the plaintiff No. 1 that the defendant was not a man of good character, he has illicit relations with his real Bhabi and defendant is a cruel temperament person. Whenever the plaintiff No. 1 raised the objection and demonstration regarding the activities of the defendant, the defendant started to beat the plaintiff No. 1 and made her life miserable.
5.That one and half year ago, the defendant deserted the plaintiff No. 1 from his house in three wearing cloths and snatching the dowry articles and golden ornament belonging to the plaintiff No. 1 and since then the plaintiff No. 1 residing in the house of her parents,
6.That during this whole period of desertion, the defendant did not bother to visit the parental house of the plaintiff to see the plaintiffs and did not pay any single penny to the plaintiffs as maintenance, as under the law it is the duty and obligation of the defendant to maintain the plaintiffs.
7.That the defendant is working in wire company Gujranwala and is also a property dealer, he is also owner of his own house and he is earning a handsome and attractive amount more than Rs. 50,000/- per month, but he ignored his obligations and avoided to maintain the plaintiffs. It is the legal right of plaintiffs to demand the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month each with 10% increases annually in future from the defendant.
8.That the plaintiff No. 1 many time approached to the defendant and requested him to pay the maintenance allowance at the above said rate but the defendant postponed the matter of payment upon one pretext or the other, hence this suit is being filed.
9.That the cause of action arose in the favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant firstly when the defendant kicked out the plaintiff No. 1 from the house and lastly when the defendant refused to pay the maintenance allowance to the plaintiff Rs. 10,000/- per month each and the same is still continuing.
10.That the parties are residing at Lahore and cause of action arose at Lahore, therefore, this Honorable Court has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
11.That the requisite court fee has been affixed upon the plaint.
In the view of above submission, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that a decree for recovery of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month each plaintiff may very kindly be passed in the favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant with 10% increase annually to meet the ends of justice.
It is further prayed that the defendant may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to each plaintiff as an interim maintenance allowance till the final disposal of the main suit.
Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be awarded.
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF
CH. MUHAMMAD SHAHID BHALLI
Advocate High Court
Chamber No. 3 First Floor Adnan Center,
Model Town Link Road Lahore
Verified on oath at Lahore, this 11th day of March, 2020 that the contents of the above plaint from paras 1 to 7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and rest of the paras 8 to 10 are correct to the best of my information and belief.
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF