Father must pay child maintenance during trial, LHC rules

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a father seeking to reopen ex parte family proceedings cannot avoid paying maintenance during the fresh trial, particularly where a minor child is concerned.

Justice Raheel Kamran dismissed a petition filed by Faizan Kareem against a Dec 18, 2025 order of an appellate court, an additional district and sessions judge in Ahmadpur East. The appellate court had set aside earlier ex parte decrees and sent the matter back to a family court for fresh adjudication, while making the remand conditional on payment of past and future maintenance already fixed in the case.

The matter arose from a suit filed in 2022 by the petitioner’s estranged wife, Yasmin Khan, who sought maintenance for herself and the couple’s minor daughter, Bakhtawar. She had stated that the petitioner turned them out of the house and did not provide financial support.

The family court proceeded ex parte against the father and in 2024 awarded maintenance of Rs6,000 per month each to the wife and the child. The appellate court later raised the amount to Rs10,000 per month and also allowed a 10 per cent annual increase for the child.

The petitioner subsequently challenged the ex parte decree. Although his application was first dismissed, he succeeded in appeal. However, the appellate court ordered a retrial before the family court subject to payment of maintenance.

Before the high court, the petitioner argued that he had divorced the respondent in 2017 and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. He also maintained that the amount fixed was too high and that the appellate court had no authority to attach such a condition to the remand order.

Justice Kamran did not accept these arguments and distinguished between the rights of the wife and those of the minor child.

Child’s right remains unaffected

In his ruling, the judge held that a father’s duty to maintain his minor child is absolute, ongoing and not dependent on the outcome of litigation. He observed that a child’s needs for food, education and healthcare continue during the pendency of court proceedings.

The high court therefore upheld the conditional remand order challenged by the petitioner, affirming that maintenance payments could not be withheld while the matter is retried.

The ruling underscores that in family disputes involving minor children, financial support obligations remain in force even when earlier ex parte proceedings are reopened and the case is sent back for fresh adjudication.