LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) directed the Punjab government to operationalise the Punjab Legal Aid Agency within three months to provide legal aid services to indigent persons in family matters.
The court passed this order in a set of petitions filed by Muhammad Aslam and others against the family courts’ decisions in the maintenance suits.
The court; however, observed that the ultimate fate of these petitions shall be decided by the respective courts keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case to ensure effective enforcement of the rights of access to justice and fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution to women and children.
The court said it is quite an ordeal for a resource-less wife and child to invoke the jurisdiction of the family court to claim maintenance when a husband/ father fails to perform his obligation in that regard, particularly in the absence of a well-established legal aid system.
The court said the legislature manifestly intends to save a wife and or a child, who usually falls within the marginalised or disadvantaged segment of the society, from having to incur costs, face delays and bear rigors of litigation in appeal for realization of a meagre decretal amount.
The court observed that Article 25(3) of the Constitution permits special provisions to be made for the benefit of women and children and the right of appeal of a husband or father has been ousted under section 14(2) (c) of the Act only in such limited cases where the amount of maintenance was deemed by the legislature to be meagre.
The court said the purpose or object of curtailing and restricting the right of appeal against a decree qua maintenance under section 14 (2) (c) of the Act is to ensure that the disputes qua maintenance are resolved expeditiously and benefits conferred through such decree reach the decree holders without being frustrated.
The court also observed that regarding plea qua annual increase under section 17A (3) of the Act, it suffices to say that the said provision comes into operation where the family court has failed to prescribe the annual increase in the maintenance while passing the judgment and decree.
The court said the curtailment of right of appeal under section 14(2)(c) of the Act is in minimal circumstances which does not unreasonably restrict access to justice when this court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, keeps a check on whether the judgment impugned in such proceedings is based on any patent violation of law, disregard of evidence available on the file or in denial of fair procedure which ought to have been followed in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court concluded.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.