Islamabad: The Supreme Court (SC) has held that where a Family Court decree specifies an annual rate of increase in maintenance but does not clarify whether the increase is to be calculated on a compound or non-compound basis, the annual increase will be calculated on the original fixed amount rather than on the amount already increased.
In a detailed written judgment, the court observed that Section 17-A(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, applies where a Family Court decree does not specify the rate of annual increase in maintenance. The provision does not bar a Family Court from fixing an annual increase of more than 10 per cent.
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Mian Ghulam Hassan Aurangzeb gave the judgment on a petition filed by Sadiq Subhani.
The Supreme Court noted that the Family Court, through its decree dated March 16, 2010, had fixed monthly maintenance of Rs 2,500 each for the two children and ordered a 20 per cent annual increase in future. The decree had attained finality, and the executing court could not add words or conditions that were not contained in the decree.
The court held that since the decree did not provide for the 20 per cent annual increase on a compound basis, the increase had to be calculated each year on the original amount.
It referred to its judgment of April 14, 2026, which had also laid down that where a decree is silent on compound increase, the enhancement remains restricted to the original fixed amount and no further increase can be applied to the amount already enhanced.
The Supreme Court set aside, to this extent, the Lahore High Court judgment dated September 11, 2025, which had directed the executing court to calculate the 20 per cent annual increase on a compound basis, and restored the appellate court’s judgment dated October 14, 2024.
The court noted that according to the executing court, the petitioner had paid Rs 2,862,280 in maintenance up to June 2024, whereas Rs 1,798,000 was payable on a non-compound basis, resulting in an excess payment of Rs 1,064,280.
It held that the father would continue paying maintenance to his daughter for as long as she remained legally entitled to it. After her entitlement ceased, the father could seek a decision regarding recovery of the excess amount paid.
The Supreme Court directed Family Courts to specify, while fixing maintenance, whether any annual increase would be calculated on a compound or non-compound basis to avoid unnecessary litigation.