The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that child maintenance orders fixed by lower courts may be altered only where the amount is manifestly arbitrary, excessive, or grossly inadequate. The ruling came in early August 2026 when a two-judge bench dismissed a petition by Mst. Shaheen Nawaz and upheld maintenance of Rs30,000 per month with a 15% annual increase for her minor son, Muhammad Rayyan Khan.
How the courts arrived at Rs30,000 a month
The maintenance amount was determined across four tiers of judicial scrutiny. The trial Family Court, by judgment dated 2 December 2024, initially awarded Rs15,000 per month with a 10% annual increase. On appeal, the District Judge enhanced the sum to Rs30,000 per month with a 15% annual increase on 3 April 2025. The Sindh High Court, in a consolidated judgment dated 26 November 2025 and a subsequent order on 4 May 2026, upheld the appellate decision. The Supreme Court, in early August 2026, declined to disturb those concurrent findings.
The rule superior courts must now follow
In its four-page judgment authored by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, the Supreme Court held that superior courts "usually do not reassess or substitute the quantum of maintenance fixed by lower fora where the same has been determined on a realistic evaluation of the father's earning capacity, socio-economic parameters and the genuine needs of the minor." Interference is warranted only where the fixed amount is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, excessive, or grossly inadequate.
The bench: comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi: found that the petitioner had failed to point to "any such perversity, arbitrary exercise of discretion, or jurisdictional defect" and concluded there was "no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in the orders warranting interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution."
What the lower courts weighed in the father's circumstances
The appellate court and the Sindh High Court had assessed the father's income and financial resources, his social standing, the child's needs, and his obligations towards two other children from his first marriage. The father was employed as a manager at a textile company in Bangladesh. The petitioner, who sought Rs40,000 per month, is the father's second wife and had already been granted Khula by the trial court through a preliminary decree dated 20 January 2022.
The precedent the judgment rests on
The Supreme Court referred to its recent decision in Muhammad Imran Baqar v. Mst. Zarnain Arzoo (PLD 2026 SC 170), which had already affirmed that a father bears both a legal and moral obligation to maintain his children and that the maintenance amount must reflect the child's actual needs and the father's financial means. The Shaheen Nawaz judgment applies that principle to the question of appellate deference: where lower courts have properly applied those criteria, higher courts will not substitute their own assessment.
What this means for maintenance cases going forward
A party dissatisfied with a Family Court or appellate maintenance order must now show more than a disagreement with the quantum. The order must be demonstrably arbitrary, excessive, or grossly inadequate - a high bar that requires pointing to a legal error, a misreading of evidence, or a misuse of judicial authority. The Supreme Court made clear that concurrent findings of fact based on a proper appraisal of evidence will not be reopened lightly.
The Supreme Court has not yet published the written judgment on its website, and no PLD or SCMR citation for the decision has been assigned as of 6 August 2026. The precise date of the oral announcement in court was reported as 3 August 2026.