LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a father cannot escape his ongoing legal, moral, and religious obligation to financially support a minor child through a private settlement or compromise agreement.
The court held that a child’s right to maintenance remains enforceable throughout the period of dependency and cannot be permanently waived, even if a one-time settlement has been reached between parents.
The ruling was issued by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, who dismissed a petition filed by Akhtar Hussain Awan challenging earlier court orders that directed him to pay maintenance to his minor son, Naseer Akhtar Awan, through the child’s mother, Sadia Awan.
Settlement cannot bar future maintenance
The petitioner argued that a compromise reached in 2007, under which he paid Rs. 60,000, barred any future claims for maintenance. He also contended that a fresh suit filed in 2019 was time-barred under limitation laws and hit by the principle of res judicata.
Rejecting these arguments, the court ruled that while claims for past maintenance may be settled, a minor child’s future right to maintenance cannot be waived through private agreements.
Justice Kayani observed that maintenance is a recurring and continuous obligation, giving rise to a continuing cause of action that persists throughout a child’s dependency.
Father’s duty reaffirmed under law and religion
The judgment reaffirmed that a father is legally responsible for providing food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and other essential needs of his minor children.
Citing Islamic teachings, the court emphasized that this obligation is not only a statutory requirement but also a religious duty, which cannot be nullified by agreements that undermine a child’s welfare or best interests.
Also read: Lahore High Court Rules Full Dower Including Jewellery Must Be Paid After Divorce
The court noted that any arrangement that attempts to permanently deprive a minor of maintenance is contrary to both law and Islamic principles.
Limitation law does not apply to minor’s maintenance
The court further held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply to claims for past maintenance by a minor child or a wife during a subsisting marriage.
Justice Kayani clarified that maintenance claims, by their nature, cannot be defeated by limitation in cases involving minors, as the obligation continues until the child becomes independent.
Directions for legal reform
While dismissing the petition, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law and Justice Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice for consideration of reforms to maintenance-related limitation laws.
The judge urged that existing laws be aligned more closely with Islamic principles to ensure better protection of minors and dependents.
Legal experts say the ruling strengthens child welfare protections and sets a clear precedent that financial responsibility toward minors cannot be contracted away through private settlements.
