Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) ordered a trial court to ask for evidence from a woman to support her assertion that a certain individual is the biological father of his child conceived after his alleged rape.
A single LHC bench including judge Ahmad Nadeem Arshad granted a petition filed by a Muhammad Afzal against the verdict of a court of first instance.
According to a FIR of March 4, 2020 for offenses under article 376, 109 of the Pakistan Criminal Code, 1860, Maryam Zahid was raped by Afzal.
Following rape, Maryam designed and finally gave birth to a child.
Later, a prosecution was filed on behalf of the child to recover the AFZAL maintenance allowance. According to the costume, the child being the biological girl of Afzal had the right to obtain an allowance.
Muhammad Afzal challenged the prosecution by fileing a written declaration, canceling the version that he was the biological father of the child.
However, the court of first instance decreed in favor of the minor of the respondent. When Afzal did not pay the provisional maintenance allowance, his defense was withdrawn and the prosecution was decreed by granting a maintenance allowance to the minor at the rate of RS3,000 per month.
Muhammad AFZAL subsequently challenged the order of the court of first instance in the LHC, which allowed his petition.
In his ordinance, judge Ahmad Nadeem Arshad noted that this was not a case of recovery from the Maintenance compensation Simpicite.
He noted that the assertion of Maryam Zahid in the complaint was that after rape, she designed the minor, who being the biological girl of this petitioner has the right to obtain an maintenance allowance.
The verdict said that in the event of a legitimate child, the mother instituted an action under the 1964 law on the family courts or approach to the President of the Union Council concerned in the light of article 9 of the Ordinance of Muslim Family Laws, 1961, for recovery of the maintenance allowance.
The court then corrects an interim maintenance allowance as a temporary arrangement and, in the event of non-defender / father, to pay the interim interview, the court withdraws its defense and immediately decrees the prosecution under article 17-A of the law on the courts of the family of 1964.
“But in the event that a woman claims the maintenance of her child against the biological father, who denies the version, the woman would first need to establish, by reliable evidence, that the accused is indeed the biological father of the child.
“The burden of proving that the accused [Afzal] Is the biological father of the child lying on the woman who claims the interview, “he said.
The LHC declared that the court of first instance had made an error in law by granting the maintenance of the child without ensuring, through the appropriate evidence process, that the child is indeed the biological offspring of the petitioner.
