LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Muhammad Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema has ruled that the right of children to receive maintenance cannot be waived, abandoned or reduced with the consent of their parents or guardian.
The court set aside the impugned decision and remanded the case to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. It directed the Family Court to determine the maintenance afresh after considering the children’s needs and welfare as well as the father’s financial capacity and social status.
The court was informed that the Family Court, in its order on January 24, 2026, had fixed monthly maintenance of Rs30,000 each for a girl and her younger brother on the basis of their mother’s consent. An appeal against the decision was subsequently dismissed by the District Judge, Sargodha, on March 26, 2026.
Counsel Khalid Parvez Waraich argued that the Family Court had erred by relying solely on the mother’s statement and had failed to independently assess the children’s needs, welfare and the father’s financial position and social status. He pointed out that in a case previously decided in 2012, maintenance had been fixed at Rs50,000 per child per month, with a 10 per cent annual increase. However, the mother subsequently made a statement, without obtaining the court’s permission, that was contrary to the children’s interests. The appellate court had upheld the arrangement by treating the statement as voluntary.
Counsel for the father, Rai Muhammad Javed Iqbal Kharl, argued that the matter had been settled through mutual consent between the parties and that the mother had made a statement on oath accepting the agreed amount. He contended that she could not subsequently withdraw from the settlement and requested dismissal of the petition.
Rejecting this argument, Justice Cheema held that the right to maintenance belonged to the child and not to the parents or guardian. The mother, merely in her capacity as guardian, could not become the owner of that right and therefore had no authority to waive, abandon or reduce the child’s entitlement.
The court observed that children’s rights could not be treated as commodities to be exchanged or bargained over during disputes between parents. It said the Family Court had a mandatory legal duty to independently examine any agreement reached between parents in light of the child’s best interests. The court held that deciding a maintenance matter merely on the basis of parental consent amounted to a failure by the Family Court to discharge its own legal responsibility.
It ruled that a guardian could not enter into any compromise on behalf of a minor without the court’s permission, and any such agreement made without permission would be void against the minor. The court emphasised that the father’s financial capacity and social status had to be independently assessed while determining maintenance, even where the parents had reached an agreement.
It clarified that once a matter concerning a minor’s rights came before a court, a guardian could not compromise those rights, particularly the right to maintenance, if the compromise was contrary to the child’s interests.
The court held that the mother’s consent statement, through which the girl was deprived of her right to receive maintenance from her father, was clearly unlawful. “Parents may enter into agreements between themselves, but they cannot bargain away the rights of their child,” the court observed, stressing that in maintenance matters, the welfare of the child takes precedence over the consent of parents.
