On 3 October 2026 the Lahore High Court ruled that child maintenance (nan-nufqa) is the absolute right of minor children and cannot be reduced or waived even by the mutual consent of the parents. This guide explains the ruling, why parental compromise deeds can no longer cut maintenance, and what it means for enforcement.
One of the most common ways children's maintenance gets cut in Pakistan's family courts is not through argument, but through agreement: a mother signs an affidavit or a khula compromise deed accepting a reduced amount so the marriage can end quickly. On 3 October 2026, the Lahore High Court closed that door. Maintenance for minor children, the court held, is the child's absolute legal right — and parents cannot reduce or waive it, even by mutual consent.
This is general information about the ruling, not advice for your particular case.
What the court decided
Justice Usman Ghani Rashid Cheema issued the ruling while hearing a petition filed by Shazia Noreen after the couple's divorce. The mother had custody of two minor children — a girl and her brother — and the combined monthly maintenance had been fixed at Rs60,000 in January 2026. But the mother had signed an affidavit agreeing to a reduced amount and withdrawing other demands. When the children challenged this before the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, their appeal was dismissed.
The Lahore High Court reversed that approach entirely:
- Maintenance is the child's absolute right — not a concession the father grants or a term the parents can negotiate away.
- Neither parents nor guardians possess the authority to surrender, reduce, or end a minor child's maintenance.
- Parental agreements must be tested — the family court must examine whether any agreement between former spouses is truly in the best interest of the minors or whether it infringes on their rights.
The case was sent back to the family court to decide afresh after examining the father's finances. As the judgment put it: "minor children are not our tomorrow, but our today."
Why parents can't bargain it away
The logic of the ruling is simple but far-reaching. A child's maintenance does not arise from a contract between the parents, so it cannot be dissolved by one. The father's duty flows from the parent-child relationship itself: the law obliges him to maintain his minor children according to his means, and the family court's decree merely quantifies and enforces that pre-existing duty.
Because the right belongs to the child, the parents are not its owners — and you cannot sell, waive, or compromise away what you do not own. This is why a pressure-signed affidavit or a compromise clause designed to speed up a khula cannot extinguish the entitlement.
What this means for khula and divorce settlements
The ruling will change how thousands of divorce and khula cases are settled:
- Compromise deeds that fix a token maintenance amount to speed up dissolution can now be challenged — a child (through a guardian) can ask the family court to re-fix maintenance on the father's real means.
- Affidavits of surrender signed by mothers during divorce negotiations no longer bind the children's claim.
- Khula arrangements remain effective for ending the marriage, but their maintenance clauses cannot shrink the children's entitlement.
- Family courts must now independently scrutinise any parental agreement touching children's maintenance, rather than recording it as a matter of course.
Practically, this means divorcing couples should treat children's maintenance as a separate matter to be fixed on the father's finances and the children's needs — not as a bargaining chip in the settlement.
A second ruling: even pensions can't be shielded
The court's protection of maintenance did not stop there. On 8 October 2026, a two-member Lahore High Court bench (Justices Malik Waqar Haider Awan and Malik Javid Iqbal Wains) ruled that a pension cannot be used to frustrate enforcement of a final maintenance decree in favour of minor children.
The case involved a retired army official, Muhammad Latif, who challenged the family court's attachment of his pension account. The court held that Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 — which bars attachment of pension "at the instance of a creditor" — does not apply, because a child with a maintenance decree is not a "creditor" in the ordinary sense: the right flows from the father's maintenance obligation, not from any loan or commercial transaction. Nor does the pay protection in Section 171 of the Pakistan Army Act cover pensions.
The court directed the executing court to conclude execution within 30 days. The message is unmistakable: children's maintenance decrees will be enforced, and a pension account is no longer an escape route.
Your practical checklist
- Never sign an affidavit or compromise deed that reduces your children's maintenance to get a divorce through faster — the children can challenge it.
- If such an agreement was already signed, the family court can be asked to re-fix maintenance on the father's financial means.
- Gather evidence of the father's income, assets, and lifestyle — maintenance is fixed on capacity, not on his word.
- For enforcement, ask the executing court about attachment of salary, bank accounts, property — and now pension accounts.
- Do not delay: arrears accumulate, and quick enforcement matters for the children's day-to-day needs.
Frequently asked questions
Can my ex-spouse and I agree to lower our children's maintenance?
No. After the Lahore High Court's 3 October 2026 ruling, parents cannot reduce or waive a minor child's maintenance even by mutual consent or affidavit. The right belongs to the child, and parents have no authority to surrender it.
I signed a khula compromise deed with reduced maintenance. Is it still binding?
The maintenance clause cannot defeat the child's entitlement. A family court can be asked to re-fix maintenance based on the father's financial means and the children's needs, regardless of what the compromise deed said.
How does the court decide the maintenance amount?
On the father's financial status and capacity, the children's reasonable needs, and the cost of living. The court directed family courts to decide afresh after examining the father's finances — not on the parents' agreement.
What if the father refuses to pay the maintenance decree?
Family courts can enforce maintenance decrees through attachment of salary, property or bank accounts — and since the Lahore High Court's 8 October 2026 ruling, even a pension account cannot be shielded from execution.
Related guides
- Shiqaq: Supreme Court's 2026 Ruling Explained
- Domestic Violence Protection Orders in Sindh
- Wife's Right to Separate Residence in Pakistani Family Law
Need guidance on your situation? A child's maintenance is a right, not a bargaining chip — we can help you fix or enforce it properly, including interim relief and execution against salary, accounts or pension. Contact us to book a confidential consultation.
By Advocate Muhammad Iqbal Khan
Draft pending advocate review.
Last reviewed:
This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter.
Common questions
No. After the Lahore High Court's 3 October 2026 ruling, parents cannot reduce or waive a minor child's maintenance even by mutual consent or affidavit. The right belongs to the child, and parents have no authority to surrender it.
The maintenance clause cannot defeat the child's entitlement. A family court can be asked to re-fix maintenance based on the father's financial means and the children's needs, regardless of what the compromise deed said.
On the father's financial status and capacity, the children's reasonable needs, and the cost of living. The court directed family courts to decide afresh after examining the father's finances — not on the parents' agreement.
Family courts can enforce maintenance decrees through attachment of salary, property or bank accounts — and since the Lahore High Court's 8 October 2026 ruling, even a pension account cannot be shielded from execution.
Related guides
Need guidance on your matter? Book a Consultation
This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter. Online contact does not create an advocate–client relationship.