LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that a father is not bound to bear the expenses of his adult sons, however, in the present days, the educational requirement which has now attained utmost importance is the liability of the father.
The court said education is the necessary qualification which is required to enable a person to earn bread and butter but it does not include higher studies and studies abroad.
The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Imran challenging the decision of a lower court which allowed his two adult sons Abdul Wassey and Abdul Raffay to become applicants in a suit against him filed for recovery of maintenance allowance and schooling expenses.
The court said the right of maintenance does not limit itself only to food, raiment, and lodging but also entails all other necessary expenses for the mental and physical well-being of the recipient.
The court observed that the trial court has to ascertain in the light of evidence as to which extent the father is bound to pay the educational expenses of an adult son.
While giving guidelines in the matter of ascertaining the educational expenses of an adult son, the court said a trial court must take into account the capacity and financial status of the father with the age and conduct of the adult son.
The court said the trial court has to ascertain whether the adult son has his own resources to sustain his studies and the nature and stage of studies including the performance of the adult and his passion and zeal towards the education.
The trial court has also to note the extent of education which is essential to enable an applicant to earn his livelihood and lastly, whether the son gives due respect and shows regard to his father and in any case is not disobedient or estranged man, the court added.
The court said no doubt the trial court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, strike out the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant.
The trial court can also strike out a party who has no connection with the relief sought and over whom it has no jurisdiction. Whether a party is to be struck out or not is to be determined based on the plant as framed, the court observed.
The court said the appellate court had rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents.
The court observed that the petitioner’s counsel remained unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order. The impugned order is well-reasoned and passed after due appreciation of the record as well as the merits of the case which is not open to any exception or interference by this court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the court added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024