LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) says that dependent parents have the right to file maintenance suits against their children before family courts, ruling that such cases fall within the courts’ jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1964.

Justice Raheel Kamran issued a detailed judgment on a petition filed by one Azhar Ijaz Khawaja who had challenged the orders of a family court of Model Town-Lahore and an additional district & sessions judge, directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his mother, Riffatun Nissa.

The family court had ordered Khawaja and his other three brothers to pay Rs5,000 per month as interim maintenance to their mother by the 14th day of each month. When the payments were not made, the family court struck off their defence and decreed the suit under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act.

The appellate court/sessions court also upheld that order, prompting the petitioner to approach the LHC.

Accepts a son’s plea against lower court verdict over ‘irrelevant’ section, ‘premature action’

The petitioner’s counsel argued that family courts have no jurisdiction over parental maintenance claims and that Section 17-A, which provides for striking off the defence in case of non-payment, applies only to maintenance for wives and children.He contended that the lower court had acted hastily by passing a decree even before the due date for payment had expired.

Opposing the plea, the mother’s counsel maintained that under Islamic law and moral obligations, sons are bound to maintain their parents if they are in need and have no independent means of income.

Justice Kamran also sought assistance from amicus curiae Advocate Muhammad Saad Khan, who opined that the Family Courts Act’s term “maintenance” is broad enough to include claims by parents.

The judge, after examining the law and Islamic principles, held that parents can legally file maintenance suits against their children in family courts.

Referring to paragraph 371 of D.F. Mulla’s Principles of Muhammadan Law, the judge noted that Islam obligates children “in easy circumstances” to maintain their poor parents.

However, the judge clarified that Section 17-A applies exclusively to maintenance cases filed by wives or children. Thus, its penal consequences — including the striking off of defence for non-payment — cannot be applied in suits filed by parents against their sons.

Justice Kamran, nevertheless, maintained that family courts can still grant interim maintenance orders for parents under their general powers to prevent destitution.

The judge observed that the family court in the case in hand acted prematurely by invoking coercive measures before the 14-day payment deadline, terming it a “misapprehension of jurisdiction” and a “denial of due process.”

Allowing the petition, the judge set aside the orders of the family court and the sessions court, remanding the case for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The judge has clarified an important legal question, ensuring that the elderly and dependent parents have an accessible legal remedy for maintenance while protecting the due process rights of defendants in such cases.

Justice Kamran directed the family court to decide the case afresh expeditiously and forwarded a copy of the judgment for compliance.

Published in Dawn, November 2nd, 2025