LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that a biological father is responsible for the financial maintenance of a child that has been born out of wedlock or as a result of sexual assault, provided that paternity is proven via established methods.
The ruling states that under the law of the land, once paternity is confirmed, financial responsibility for the child cannot be denied by the biological father.
A written verdict to this effect was issued in a case concerning the financial maintenance of a minor girl, whose mother had accused Muhammad Afzal of raping her in 2020, leading to her pregnancy and the birth of a daughter.
A first information report (FIR) was registered against Afzal under Sections 376 (rape) and 109 (abetment) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The mother later filed a lawsuit with the court demanding financial maintenance (child support), claiming Afzal was the biological father of the baby girl, which the accused rejected, vehemently denying paternity and refusing to provide support.
A trial court ruled in the child’s favour, ordering the rapist to pay Rs3,000 per month in maintenance. However, Afzal challenged the decision in LHC, which resulted in the latest ruling.
The LHC’s Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad in his ruling wrote: “Consequently, the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court with the direction to record the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the specific claim made in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant is the biological father of respondent No. 2…”
“If, after recording the evidence, the Court concludes that the minor is indeed the biological child of the defendant, the proceedings may continue for the determination of the maintenance allowance,” it added.
The ruling however made it clear that the burden of proving paternity lies on the mother.
“In the case where a woman claims maintenance for her child against the defendant/biological father, who denies the version, the woman would first need to establish, through trustworthy evidence, that the defendant is indeed the biological father of the child.
“The burden of proving that the defendant is the biological father of the child lies on the woman who claims the maintenance. “
The high court also drew attention to Islamic legal principles, referencing historical perspectives on child maintenance.
It noted: “In view of the above discussion, equity, fair play and justice demands that respondent No.2, if proves to be a biological child of the petitioner, then she must be compensated and maintained by him.
“The person, having begotten the child, is bound to provide for its maintenance. The biological father is also morally under obligation to maintain his illegitimate child. “
The court in its ruling also remanded the matter back to the trial court, directing it to first establish paternity before enforcing maintenance payments.
“Once paternity is established, the defendant would then be legally obligated to provide maintenance for the child. The court would assess the defendant’s financial capacity and the child’s needs to determine the appropriate maintenance allowance. “
The ruling further said: “… the [trial] court has erred in law by granting maintenance for the child without first ensuring, through the proper process of evidence, that the child is indeed the biological offspring of the petitioner.
“In cases where paternity is disputed, it is essential for the Court to first establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the biological relationship between the child and the defendant.
“Without recording sufficient evidence, the Court’s decision to grant maintenance prematurely bypasses a critical step in determining legal responsibility. This failure undermines the principles of fairness and due process in family law proceedings.”
