24/11/2025
JUDGMENT SUMMARY (C.A. No. 1413 of 2021) Supreme Court of Pakistan
Muhammad Aslam Chattha v. Shehnaz Akhtar Zahoor Ahmed and Another on Whether a neglected wife may claim retrospective maintenance beyond six years
1. Main Legal Issue / Topic
Whether a neglected wife may claim retrospective maintenance beyond six years, and how Article 120 Limitation Act, 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance before the Family Court.
---
2. Brief Facts & Sequence of Proceedings
(i) Marriage & Alleged Neglect (Paras 3–4)
Parties married on 14 July 2002.
Respondent-wife alleged that since 2004, the husband abandoned her and provided no maintenance.
Shortly before filing the suit, husband allegedly insulted and refused to maintain her.
(ii) Suit Before the Family Court (Para 3)
Suit filed on 11 May 2017 claiming Rs. 50,000 per month as maintenance retrospectively from June 2004.
Family Court decreed:
Rs. 10,000 per month from June 2004 till marriage subsists.
15% annual increase.
Husband found negligent.
(iii) First Appeal (Para 3)
Appellate Court maintained amount but limited past maintenance only from date of filing (11-5-2017).
(iv) Writ Petition Before Islamabad High Court (Para 3)
Respondent-wife filed W.P. No. 431/2019.
High Court set aside appellate decree and restored Family Court decree granting full arrears from 2004.
(v) Supreme Court Appeal (Paras 1 & 3)
Husband challenged only the retrospective period, arguing under Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302) that maintenance cannot exceed six years retrospectively.
---
3. Appreciation of Evidence by the Parties
A. Evidence & Arguments by the Petitioners (Husband)
Position:
Denied abandonment.
Argued that no maintenance is payable beyond six years based on Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302).
Contended that limitation bars arrears prior to six years from suit filing.
Expressed willingness to pay only for the last six years (Para 10).
Citations Relied:
1. PLD 1972 SC 302 — Muhammad Nawaz v. Khurshid Begum
(relied to argue limitation of six years applies to past maintenance).
---
B. Evidence & Arguments by the Respondent (Wife)
Asserted continuous neglect since 2004 (Para 3).
Asserted right to maintenance from date of cause of action, not date of suit.
Relied on Islamic principles, Quranic injunctions, and Pakistani case law strengthening wife’s rights (Paras 5–8).
Showed appellant’s refusal to maintain occurred within six years before suit filing, thus satisfying Article 120 (Para 9).
Citations Relied by Respondent (derived from text referenced by Court):
1. PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 703 — Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Nasima Bibi
2. Quranic verses: Surah Al-Baqarah 233 & 241; Surah At-Talaq 1, 7 & 65; Surah An-Nisa 34.
3. Ahadith regarding obligation of maintenance (Paras 6).
---
4. Final Appreciation by the Supreme Court
Key Findings
(i) Wife's right to past maintenance is established under Islamic law (Paras 5–7).
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of Quran, Sunnah, and Ijma establishing the husband's continuous obligation.
(ii) Past maintenance is a legally enforceable debt (Paras 4 & 10)
Husband’s neglect creates a debt, recoverable even after years.
Wife only needs to show non-maintenance without fault on her part.
(iii) Article 120 Limitation Act applies, but the cause of action is “continuing wrong” (Paras 8–9)
Maintenance is a continuing wrong under Section 23 Limitation Act — each month creates a fresh cause of action (“de die in diem”).
Suit was filed within limitation, as refusal occurred within 6 years before suit.
(iv) Husband’s argument rejected (Para 10)
The Court held the husband was attempting to evade responsibility through legal technicalities.
(v) High Court judgment upheld (Para 11)
The appeal was dismissed and Family Court decree restored.
---
5. Ratio Decidendi (Rules Laid Down)
(1) Past maintenance is recoverable as a continuing cause of action
Para 9:
> “Maintenance… constitutes a ‘continuing wrong’ in accordance with Section 23 of the Limitation Act… a cause of action arises anew de die in diem.”
(2) Article 120 applies, but does not extinguish the right — only regulates time to sue
Para 9:
> “The statute of limitations merely prescribes the timeframe to approach court; it does not affect the validity of the claim.”
(3) Wife can claim arrears from the date of neglect, not from the date of suit
Para 4:
> “The argument that only future maintenance is claimable… lacks reason. Arrears are an outstanding debt owed by the husband.”
(4) Limitation does not absolve a negligent husband of arrears if suit is within time
Para 10:
> “Just because six years have passed does not absolve him of liability… He remains liable for the maintenance owed for the past periods.”
(5) Islamic law imposes a continuous, non-exhaustible duty of maintenance
Paras 5–7 (Quran & Sunnah):
> “A husband must provide reasonably sufficient maintenance… according to his means.”
---
6. Obiter Dicta
(i) Broader sociocultural and constitutional obligations (Paras 2–3)
The Court discussed the moral, ethical, and constitutional need to protect women from neglect.
Para 2:
> “Our society upholds these values on a moral foundation... particularly concerning women’s rights.”
Para 2:
> “Legislatures have established provisions to support women in distress and safeguard them from moral and material neglect.”
(ii) Criticism of husband’s conduct (Para 10)
Para 10:
> “His argument reveals his desire to abandon the respondent, potentially leaving her with deep emotional scars.”
This observation is not necessary for the legal decision and thus constitutes obiter.
---
7. Case Law Relied Upon
A. Petitioners (Husband)
1. Muhammad Nawaz v. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302)
B. Respondent (Wife) / Relied upon by Court
1. Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Nasima Bibi (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 703)
2. Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302) (explained and distinguished)
3. Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court Sahiwal (PLD 2006 SC 457)
4. Foreign / classical authorities:
Venkopadhyaya v. Kavari Hengusu (2 Madras 36)
Holes v. Chard Union (1894) 1 Ch. 293
AIR 1936 Bombay 289
2025 SCMR 955 (Mst. Ramzanu Bibi)
---
8. Final Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s restoration of full arrears (from 2004 onward) is upheld.
No order as to costs.
