Lahore:

Lahore High Court (LHC) has imposed a lawsuit on seeking proof from a woman to substantiate her claim that a particular individual is the biological father of her child who has been conceived after her alleged rape.

A single-member bench of LHC, which consisted of Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, allowed a petition filed by a Muhammad Afzal against the verdict of a trial.

According to a FIR on March 4, 2020 for offenses in accordance with section 376, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Maryam Zahid was allegedly raped by Afzal.

As a result of rape, Maryam was devised and eventually gave birth to a female child.

Later, a case was brought on behalf of the child to improve maintenance allowance from Afzal. According to the suit, the child, who was the biological daughter of Afzal, had entitled to receive an allowance.

Muhammad Afzal contested the suit by submitting a written statement and negating the version that he was the biological father of the child.

However, the court’s court declared the minor advantage of the respondent. When Afzal did not pay the preliminary maintenance allowance, his defense was turned off and the suit was decided by allocating maintenance allowance to the minor with a rate of RS3,000 per year. Month.

Muhammad Afzal later contested the court’s order in LHC, which allowed his petition.

In his order, justice noted Ahmad Nadeem Arshad that this was not a case of recovery of the maintenance allowance simplicites.

He noted that the claim of Maryam Zahid in the plaintiff was that, as a result of rape, she conceived the minor, such as being the biological daughter of the current petitioner has the right to receive maintenance allowance.

The verdict said that in the event of a legitimate child, the mother introduces a case under the Family Courts Act, 1964 or addresses the chairman of the trade union council in the light of section 9 of the Muslim Family Law Regulation, 1961, for the recovery of maintenance allowance.

The court then establishes a preliminary maintenance allowance as a temporary scheme and at the defendant/father’s non-payment of temporary maintenance of the court beats his defense and decree suit under section 17-A in the Family Courts Act, 1964.

“But in the case of a woman claiming maintenance for her child against the biological father who denies the version, the woman would first need to establish through reliable evidence that the defendant is actually the biological father of the child.

“The burden by proving that the defendant [Afzal] Is the child’s biological father lies on the woman who claims maintenance, ”it said.

The LHC said the courts made a mistake by giving maintenance to the child without first ensuring through the right process of evidence that the child is actually the piological offspring of the petitioner.