Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Ss. 5, 17 – Maintenance of child – Scope and quantum – Principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence and case law - Held, father is under a continuous legal and religious obligation to maintain his children regardless of the marital status with the mother or custodial arrangements – This obligation is derived from the immutable bond of paternity and not contingent upon cohabitation or custody – Cited with approval: Humayun Hassan v. Arsalan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557); Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, Sections 369–370. (b) Islamic law – Nafaqah (maintenance) – Determination of amount – Considerations of child's needs and father's financial capacity - Held, maintenance must include all reasonable expenses essential for physical, mental, and emotional development of the child, including food, shelter, healthcare, education, and social needs – The father’s income and earning capacity must be weighed, but mere unemployment is not a valid defense if the father is physically and mentally capable of earning – Hanafi position noted: obligation to earn subsists even if wealth is not currently possessed – Cited texts: Hedaya, Ameer Ali on Mahomedan Law, Fyzee’s Outlines of Muhammadan Law. (c) Family law – Custody and maintenance – Distinction – Termination of marriage does not absolve father from child support - Held, the obligation to maintain a child continues post-divorce and is independent of the wife’s right to maintenance – Such duty is not diminished if the child is in the hizanat of the mother – Ethically and legally untenable to link maintenance with custody. (d) Constitutional petition – Scope of interference – Concurrent findings – No material evidence produced to displace factual findings - Held, petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., salary slips, income tax returns) to disprove the findings of the lower courts regarding his financial ability – Petitioner’s claim of limited income and remarriage not substantiated – High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition as no jurisdictional error or illegality found in concurrent decisions. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3) – Leave to appeal – Principles – Concurrent findings of fact by trial, appellate, and High Court – No interference warranted Held, Supreme Court declined to grant leave as no question of law of public importance was made out, and the findings of the courts below were duly supported by the record and legal principles. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 9, 14, 25 & 27 – Right to Life, Dignity, Equality and Non-Discrimination Marital status as bar to family pension entitlement—Scope—Held, a daughter’s right to family pension of a deceased civil servant cannot be extinguished merely due to change in marital status after the pensioner’s death—Family pension is not a discretionary grant but a legal and constitutional entitlement grounded in Articles 9 and 14, encompassing both the right to life and to live with dignity—Denial of pension based solely on a woman’s change in marital status, without regard to actual financial need, constitutes systemic gender bias and violates Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution—Presumption that married women are financially secure and unmarried/divorced women are dependent, held, to be a flawed and patriarchal assumption—Eligibility for pension must be based on need, not formal status—Court observed that such restrictive interpretations fail to recognize women as autonomous right-holders and reinforce unconstitutional and discriminatory stereotypes. (b) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 – Rr. 4.7(1), 4.10(2)(B), 4.10(3) Interpretation of “unmarried” and “divorced” daughter—Scope—Held, Rules entitle both unmarried and divorced daughters to family pension without conditioning eligibility on the timing of marital status—Circular dated 05.12.2022 issued by Government of Sindh interpreted Rule 4.10(2)(B) restrictively by linking pension entitlement to status at time of death of the pensioner—Such restriction, held, had no support in the Act or the Rules and unlawfully curtailed an otherwise vested right—Rules confer pensionary entitlement based on category of beneficiary, not time-based marital conditions—Circular found to exceed its administrative scope and struck down as void. (c) Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 – S. 20 Right to pension—Nature and succession—Held, pension is not an ex gratia or charitable benefit but a legally accrued right of a government servant for past service—In case of death, this right devolves onto legal heirs under the Act and must be administered in accordance with law—Delay in disbursement or imposition of arbitrary restrictions amounts to negligence and breach of statutory and constitutional duty—Government departments bound to uphold fair, timely, and lawful distribution of pensionary benefits. (d) Executive Instructions and Circulars – Legal Status Administrative clarifications—Scope—Held, executive instructions or departmental circulars cannot override, amend, or narrow the operation of parent statutes or delegated legislation—Circular dated 05.12.2022 imposed an unauthorised condition that conflicted with the statutory pension framework—Court reaffirmed that executive authorities cannot issue clarifications that create new legal obligations or exclusions absent legislative backing. (e) Gender Equality – International Obligations – CEDAW, ICCPR, ICESCR, ILO Convention No. 111 Discriminatory pension frameworks based on marital status—Effect—Held, Pakistan’s international treaty obligations prohibit laws or practices that deny women access to economic benefits due to sex or marital status—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ICCPR, ICESCR, and ILO Convention No.111 obligate the State to eliminate gender-based legal inequalities and stereotypes—Circular impugned was found to contravene Pakistan’s treaty commitments and reinforced unjust assumptions about women’s dependency and financial security—Court emphasized the need for a needs-based and dignity-affirming pension framework in line with global standards. (f) Comparative Jurisprudence – Pension Entitlement of Daughters Reference to Indian, Bangladeshi, and European legal frameworks—Held, India and Bangladesh have adopted progressive pension frameworks that assess entitlement based on financial need rather than marital status—Indian courts have interpreted “unmarried daughter” to include widowed and divorced daughters, and recognized pension as a constitutional right—European Court of Human Rights has held that denial of social security based on arbitrary classifications violates proportionality and equality principles—Pakistan’s rigid framework found to lag behind global standards and in need of reform. Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused. Circular declared void ab initio for being unconstitutional and contrary to statutory law and international obligations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Contractual disputes—Scope of interference by High Court—Limitation of writ remedy in purely private contractual matters The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, ordinarily refrains from interfering in matters arising purely out of contractual obligations between private parties, particularly where disputed questions of fact require evidence. The impugned judgment of the High Court had ventured into adjudication of a contractually governed employment termination without assessing available alternate remedies or following due evidentiary processes. Cited Case: Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) (b) Service Law—Private contractual employment—Termination simpliciter—Distinction between regular government service and private/contractual appointment—Employee not governed by statutory rules—Remedy lies in civil suit, not writ The appellant's employment was governed exclusively by the terms of a contract, and no statutory rules were shown to apply. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, not being a civil servant or a statutory employee, could not invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge the termination. Where the relationship is that of master and servant without statutory backing, the remedy lies in ordinary civil proceedings for damages or reinstatement subject to contract terms. Cited Case: Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806) (c) High Court Judgment—Error of jurisdiction—Substitution of contractual terms by judicial reasoning—Improper assumption of fact-finding role—High Court exceeded constitutional jurisdiction The Court held that the High Court erred in law by effectively rewriting the employment terms and substituting its own findings over matters contractually agreed upon between the parties. This amounted to judicial overreach and transgression into a domain reserved for trial courts. The writ jurisdiction was exercised in a manner that disrupted the legal sanctity of mutually agreed contracts. Cited Case: Province of Punjab v. Asif Jamil (PLD 2021 SC 741) (d) Contract Act, 1872—Contractual obligations—Termination clause—Binding nature—Courts not to rewrite terms—Freedom of contract upheld The appeal involved the enforcement of a contractually stipulated termination clause. The Supreme Court reiterated that where a contract allows either party to terminate without cause, courts must respect such autonomy unless vitiated by fraud, coercion, or illegality. The High Court had misapplied equitable considerations in disregard of binding contractual terms. Cited Case: Shafique Ahmed Khan v. NESPAK (PLD 2011 SC 610) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside. Constitutional petition dismissed. Supreme Court upheld the appellant's right to terminate the respondent in accordance with contract terms.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Contractual disputes—Scope of interference by High Court—Limitation of writ remedy in purely private contractual matters The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, ordinarily refrains from interfering in matters arising purely out of contractual obligations between private parties, particularly where disputed questions of fact require evidence. The impugned judgment of the High Court had ventured into adjudication of a contractually governed employment termination without assessing available alternate remedies or following due evidentiary processes. Cited Case: Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) (b) Service Law—Private contractual employment—Termination simpliciter—Distinction between regular government service and private/contractual appointment—Employee not governed by statutory rules—Remedy lies in civil suit, not writ The appellant's employment was governed exclusively by the terms of a contract, and no statutory rules were shown to apply. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, not being a civil servant or a statutory employee, could not invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge the termination. Where the relationship is that of master and servant without statutory backing, the remedy lies in ordinary civil proceedings for damages or reinstatement subject to contract terms. Cited Case: Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806) (c) High Court Judgment—Error of jurisdiction—Substitution of contractual terms by judicial reasoning—Improper assumption of fact-finding role—High Court exceeded constitutional jurisdiction The Court held that the High Court erred in law by effectively rewriting the employment terms and substituting its own findings over matters contractually agreed upon between the parties. This amounted to judicial overreach and transgression into a domain reserved for trial courts. The writ jurisdiction was exercised in a manner that disrupted the legal sanctity of mutually agreed contracts. Cited Case: Province of Punjab v. Asif Jamil (PLD 2021 SC 741) (d) Contract Act, 1872—Contractual obligations—Termination clause—Binding nature—Courts not to rewrite terms—Freedom of contract upheld The appeal involved the enforcement of a contractually stipulated termination clause. The Supreme Court reiterated that where a contract allows either party to terminate without cause, courts must respect such autonomy unless vitiated by fraud, coercion, or illegality. The High Court had misapplied equitable considerations in disregard of binding contractual terms. Cited Case: Shafique Ahmed Khan v. NESPAK (PLD 2011 SC 610) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside. Constitutional petition dismissed. Supreme Court upheld the appellant's right to terminate the respondent in accordance with contract terms.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Multiple FIRs—Positive jurisdiction under S. 185 Cr.P.C.—High Court’s non-determination of jurisdictional claim—Remand ordered The petitioner challenged the registration of multiple FIRs under writ jurisdiction, invoking Section 185 Cr.P.C. before the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to examine the petitioner’s core contention under Section 185 Cr.P.C., as it confined its decision only to joinder of charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The omission warranted interference, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication. Held: Failure to decide a critical jurisdictional plea amounts to a legal error and justifies remand. Relevant Provision: Section 185, Cr.P.C. (Jurisdiction to try offences subject to High Court’s direction) (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Scope of remand—Maintainability objections—Trial continuation not barred—Direction to High Court to decide pending writs uninfluenced by Supreme Court observations The Court clarified that its earlier remand order in Civil Petition No. 14 of 2025 was limited to addressing the Office’s objections to maintainability and did not preclude the High Court from examining merits. In the instant case, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to adjudicate both connected writ petitions afresh, uninfluenced by prior procedural history. Held: The High Court must decide all pending matters, including joinder and multiple FIR issues, independently and expeditiously. (c) Anti-Terrorism Trials—Simultaneous proceedings—No bar on trial progression—Remedy for suspension lies before High Court Petitioner requested suspension of trials in Anti-Terrorism Courts at Lahore and Faisalabad pending High Court proceedings. The Supreme Court refused to interfere, holding that suspension of trial is within the High Court’s jurisdiction, and that the trial courts should proceed in accordance with law unless directed otherwise by competent authority. Held: No stay on ATC proceedings; High Court empowered to decide suspension on merits. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and partially allowed. Impugned judgment of Lahore High Court dated 20.03.2025 set aside. Writ Petition No. 17090/2025 deemed pending and remanded for fresh decision along with Case Diary No. 174515/2024.

Summary: Invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be termed to be an "adequate remedy" to challenge grant or refusal of ad interim injunction being not final and conclusive in nature. 321Crl. Appeal 43770/19 Zahid Hussain Vs The State etc. Justice Abher Gul Khan 07- 07- 2025 2025 LHC 5049 2025 YLR 2359 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 14 & 35 – Right to Dignity and Protection of the Family Litigation weaponizing infertility and attacking womanhood—Scope—Held, right to dignity under Art.14 and the obligation to protect the institution of marriage under Art.35 prohibit the use of litigation to degrade and traumatize women—Allegation by petitioner-husband that respondent-wife was not legally “female” and unfit for conjugal life, despite conclusive medical findings and evidence of cohabitation, was found to be frivolous, demeaning, and abusive—Court recorded strong disapproval of such conduct, terming it an affront to personal dignity and an abuse of judicial process. (b) Muslim Family Laws – Dower and Maintenance – Validity despite Alleged Infertility Entitlement to dower and maintenance—Effect of infertility or suspicion thereof—Held, infertility, even if established, is no bar to a woman’s entitlement to dower or maintenance—Marital bond is a sacred covenant under Islamic law; personal medical conditions cannot be weaponized to undermine marital obligations—Court affirmed that the respondent-wife, having lived with the petitioner and proven consummation of marriage, was entitled to dower, dowry articles, and maintenance, as rightly held by courts below. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court Concurrent findings of fact by Family Court, District Court, and High Court—Scope of interference—Held, Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless a legal error is apparent on the face of record—In present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, based on record, and legally sound—Leave to appeal refused accordingly. (d) Civil Procedure – Abuse of Process – Frivolous and Malicious Defence Malicious litigation—Repeated allegations of non-femininity and infertility despite contrary medical findings—Held, petitioner’s persistent attempts to degrade the respondent through invasive scrutiny amounted to misuse of judicial process—Such conduct warrants exemplary sanction to deter recurrence and uphold judicial dignity. (e) Costs – Exemplary Costs – Deterrence against Misuse of Judicial Process Award of exemplary costs—Scope and justification—Held, Court has inherent power to impose exemplary costs to penalize frivolous and abusive litigation—Petitioner’s conduct caused prolonged trauma and humiliation to the respondent over a decade—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be paid to the respondent—Non-payment to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Disposition: Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 500,000/- imposed on the petitioner for abuse of judicial process and personal degradation of the respondent; recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of non-payment.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act, 1990 – Ss. 2(37), 6, 7, 8, 22, 23, 26, 33, 34, 46 & 47 – Input Tax Adjustment – Fake/Flying Invoices – Factual Inquiry and Onus of Proof - Disallowance of input tax claim on allegation of fake/flying invoices—Held, respondents were confronted by the Inland Revenue Department through a show cause notice requiring proof of actual purchases for tax period July 2019 to June 2020—Despite production of withholding certificates and bank statements, Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue disallowed input adjustment of Rs. 55 million for lack of physical delivery evidence (challans, bilties, etc.), citing violation of Section 73 and issuance by blacklisted suppliers—Tribunal, however, after scrutinizing factual record and hearing both parties, found the Department failed to conclusively establish tax fraud or falsity of documentation—ATIR order, setting aside liability, upheld by High Court—Held, findings of fact recorded by ATIR were based on evidence and required no interference. (b) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 185(3) – Leave to Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact by ATIR and High Court - Scope of interference under Article 185(3)—Held, where the Appellate Tribunal and High Court concurrently found that the Department failed to discharge its burden to prove issuance of fake invoices or non-compliance with Section 73, Supreme Court will not disturb findings unless clear error of law or misreading of record is demonstrated—Petitioner failed to point out any such legal infirmity—Leave to appeal declined. (c) Sales Tax Act, 1990 – Ss. 73 & 2(37) – Tax Fraud and Banking Channel Requirements - Compliance with Section 73 (banking channel requirement)—Held, mere absence of physical documentation like delivery challans or bilties does not per se establish tax fraud under Section 2(37) where banking transactions and withholding records are available—Burden lies on Department to establish that invoices were fictitious and unsupported by actual movement of goods—Failure to do so renders action unsustainable. (d) Appellate Jurisdiction – Role of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and High Court in Tax References Function of ATIR and High Court in tax disputes—Held, ATIR is final fact-finding authority in tax matters—Once Tribunal has examined the factual and legal matrix and found no conclusive proof of tax fraud or statutory breach, High Court rightly declined to interfere—Civil petition for leave to appeal against such concurrent findings held not maintainable. Disposition: Civil Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. Impugned judgment of Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) upheld. Orders of ATIR restored.