LAHORE:
The Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) has ordered a court of first instance to seek evidence of a woman to corroborate her claim that a certain individual is the biological father of her son conceived after her alleged violation.
A bank with a single LHC member comprised of Judge Ahmad Nadeem Arshad allowed a request presented by a Muhamad Afzal against the verdict of a court of first instance.
According to a FIR on March 4, 2020 for crimes under section 376, 109 of the Pakistan Criminal Code, 1860, AFZAL supposedly violated Maryam Zahid.
As a result of rape, Maryam conceived and finally gave birth to a girl.
Later, a claim was filed in the name of the child for the recovery of the AFZAL maintenance allocation. According to the demand, the child was the biological daughter of AFZAL had the right to obtain an assignment.
Muhammad Afzal challenged the lawsuit by submitting a written statement, denying the version that he was the child’s biological father.
However, the Court of First Instance decreed the favor of the minor defendant. When AFZAL did not pay the provisional maintenance allocation, his defense was beaten and the demand was decreed granting the minor maintenance at a rate of RS3,000 per month.
Later, Muhammad Afzal challenged the order of the Court of First Instance in the LHC, which allowed his request.
In his order, Judge Ahmad Nadeem Arshad said that this was not a case of recovery of the Simpliciter maintenance assignment.
He pointed out that Maryam Zahid’s statement in the lawsuit was that, as a result of the violation, she conceived the child, who is the biological daughter of the current petitioner has the right to obtain a maintenance subsidy.
The verdict said that, in the case of a legitimate child, the mother institutes a claim under the Law of Family Courts, 1964 or approaches the President of the Council of the Union in question in the light of section 9 of the Ordinance of Muslim Family Laws, 1961, for the recovery of the maintenance allocation.
Then, the Court sets a provisional maintenance assignment as a temporary agreement and the failure of the defendant/father to pay provisional maintenance, the Court eliminates its defense and decrees the claim immediately under section 17-A of the Law of Family Courts, 1964.
“But in the event that a woman claims her son’s maintenance against the biological father, who denies the version, the woman would first need to establish, through reliable evidence, that the accused is in fact the child’s biological father.
“The burden of demonstrating that the accused [Afzal] He is the child’s biological father lies on the woman who claims maintenance, “he said.
The LHC said that the Court of First Instance made an error in the law by granting maintenance to the child without first guaranteeing, through the proper evidence process, that the child is in fact the biological offspring of the petitioner.
