2017
MLD 1677 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side
Appellant : Syed SHOUKAT GILLANI
Side
Opponent : Mst. ANSAR GILLANI
Dower ---Dower could either be prompt or deferred
---Prompt Dower was either paid at the time of Nikah or was payable at the
demand of wife whereas deferred Dower was payable when marriage was dissolved
between the spouses because of divorce or death of husband.
--------------------------------_________________
Ghar Haqq muharrr mnnn nhn diyyya jawww saqtta
plz read more the following case law.
2008 SCMR 186.
______________________________________
.Remarriage of a woman.
The period of Iddat
laid by the Holy Quran is not 90 days. It is rather three periods of
menstruation which do not necessarily extend to 90 days. According to Hanfis jurists the minimum
period of menstruation is 3 days and the minimum period of Tuhr (period of
purity) is 15 days.
1992 SCMR
1273
______________________________________
No provisions for
amendment of pleadings were provided but there existed no prohibition or
absolute bar on powers of Family Court to allow any party to amend pleadings,
S. 5, Schedule---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44---Writ petition---amendment of pleadings---Powers of Family Court---Scope---Plaintiff instituted suit for dower and recovery of maintenance allowance before Family Court---Plaintiff lady was pregnant at the time of institution of suit---After birth of child application was moved for arraying the minor in line of plaintiffs by amending plaint which was accepted---Petitioner assailed order allowing the amendment on grounds that no procedure had been provided for amendment ---Principle---No provisions for amendment of pleadings were provided but there existed no prohibition or absolute bar on powers of Family Court to allow any party to amend pleadings---Family Court can allow any procedure not expressly barred under law for final disposal of case---When parentage was not being disputed there was no bar for impleadment of minor in suit for maintenance as party---Application for amendment after birth of child was also held to be continuation of stance taken in suit for recovery of maintenance and writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 CLC 1326 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : RASHID SHAMIM
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT/CIVIL JUDGE COURT NO.II, MUZAFFAGARH
S. 5, Schedule---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44---Writ petition---amendment of pleadings---Powers of Family Court---Scope---Plaintiff instituted suit for dower and recovery of maintenance allowance before Family Court---Plaintiff lady was pregnant at the time of institution of suit---After birth of child application was moved for arraying the minor in line of plaintiffs by amending plaint which was accepted---Petitioner assailed order allowing the amendment on grounds that no procedure had been provided for amendment ---Principle---No provisions for amendment of pleadings were provided but there existed no prohibition or absolute bar on powers of Family Court to allow any party to amend pleadings---Family Court can allow any procedure not expressly barred under law for final disposal of case---When parentage was not being disputed there was no bar for impleadment of minor in suit for maintenance as party---Application for amendment after birth of child was also held to be continuation of stance taken in suit for recovery of maintenance and writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 CLC 1326 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : RASHID SHAMIM
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT/CIVIL JUDGE COURT NO.II, MUZAFFAGARH
______________________________________
Marriage, termination
of---"khula " without recourse to court---Scope---Word "khula '
literally mean t "to put off"---khula denoted laying down by the
husband of rights and authority over his wife, at her instance, on acceptance of
consideration---khula signified a conditional situation on the part of wife,
entered into for the purpose of dissolving the marital tie at her instance, in
lieu of a compensation paid or agreed to be paid by her to the husband out of
her property---In case of mutual agreement on such an arrangement, the wife did
not need to go to court and ask for dissolution of her marriage as in such a
situation the husband would release her from the marital bond and the wife
would be free to marry any other person after the iddat period, as would be
required in her case, if she was or was not pregnant.
2014 PLD 43 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
( SALEEM AHMAD
Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Attorney General of Pakistan)
2014 PLD 43 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
( SALEEM AHMAD
Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Attorney General of Pakistan)
______________________________________
Rejection of application U/S 12(2)
Hina and Samina case
PLD 2009 LAHORE
2006 SCMR 1960
1994 MLD 1890
1993 CLC 1336
2004 MLD 1008
2004 CLC 466
2006 SCMR 531
PLD 1998 PESH 1
2006 MLD 750
2002 CLC 166
______________________________________
The provision of section 12(2) is applicable to
family suits.
PLJ 1996
Kar 185
_____________________________________
Section 12(2) is also apply on Rent case
PLJ 1996
Kar 55
_____________________________________
It is custom / tradition to give dowry articles
to the bridge
2017 SCMR
393
_____________________________________
Appeal
Under Section 14 (9) . Family courts order dismissing application for setting
aside ex-partee decree wether final or interim to set aside ex partee decree
amounted to disposal of entire matter pending before it, 1991 CLC 1039
__________________________________________________
Husband
at the time of Nikah he gifted his property . after that time husband is not
entitled said property. PLD 2004 SC
10 Supreme court.
_____________________________________________________
If in
family suit necessary document did not attached with the plaint of written
statement , then they will be submitted later under section 7(11) .
2012 MLD 216 Lah Talat Shaheen V/S Muhammad Ibrar
_________________________________________
In
maintenance salary of army soldier can be deducted .2011 PLD 334 Lahore
__________________________________________________
Without
Halala marriage can be solemnised .
2011 CLC 1211. // PLD 2011 Lah 458 // PLD Pesh 169 // PLD
2013 Sindh 209
______________________________________
Transfer of Family Suit allowed to where wife was
resies.
Court
should see the convenience of female and children while deciding transfer application.
Family cases should be tried by one and the same court at the place where wife
was residing to avoid any conflicting judgment. Suit filed by husband was
withdrawn and at place ‘X’ for adjudication in accordance with law . 2015 MLD 708 Peshawer
____________________________________
High Court
observed that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the
extent that if Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay
maintenance were poor and those who should have to receive maintenance also
fell under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then
suitable directions to Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued
----S. 5 & Sched. ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintenance allowance for minors, recovery of---Petitioner was grandfather of minors and he failed to provide maintenance allowance as fixed by Family Court---Plea raised by petitioner was that he was a pensioner having meagre sources of income and was unable to pay maintenance to minors as fixed by Family Court---Validity---By putting a person with 76 years of age behind the bars, the minors would not be adequately compensated with regard to their maintenance, when grandfather was a pensioner and not in a position to maintain the minors---Such was not enough to attend miseries of the minors---High Court observed that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the extent that if Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay maintenance were poor and those who should have to receive maintenance also fell under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued---Family Courts were also expected not to deal with delicate matters touching the rights of people, particularly destitute ladies and needy minors and instead of dealing with their such affairs in mechanical manner, there was a need to adopt new line of action to start with creation of a society, which was dreamed of as a social welfare State---By putting person behind the bars for non-providing maintenance to deserving people, no service was being offered to such needy people but their miseries were being added---High Court directed the authorities to register the minors as regular beneficiaries from District Bail-ul-Maal---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
P L D 2012 Lahore 445
Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J
ABDUL MAJEED---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others---Respondents
----S. 5 & Sched. ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintenance allowance for minors, recovery of---Petitioner was grandfather of minors and he failed to provide maintenance allowance as fixed by Family Court---Plea raised by petitioner was that he was a pensioner having meagre sources of income and was unable to pay maintenance to minors as fixed by Family Court---Validity---By putting a person with 76 years of age behind the bars, the minors would not be adequately compensated with regard to their maintenance, when grandfather was a pensioner and not in a position to maintain the minors---Such was not enough to attend miseries of the minors---High Court observed that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the extent that if Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay maintenance were poor and those who should have to receive maintenance also fell under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued---Family Courts were also expected not to deal with delicate matters touching the rights of people, particularly destitute ladies and needy minors and instead of dealing with their such affairs in mechanical manner, there was a need to adopt new line of action to start with creation of a society, which was dreamed of as a social welfare State---By putting person behind the bars for non-providing maintenance to deserving people, no service was being offered to such needy people but their miseries were being added---High Court directed the authorities to register the minors as regular beneficiaries from District Bail-ul-Maal---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
P L D 2012 Lahore 445
Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J
ABDUL MAJEED---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others---Respondents
____________________________________
2016 CLC 1337 Lahore)
Before
Muhammad Parrukh Irfan Khan, J MUHAMMAD APZALPetitioner versus Mst. IDREES BIBI
and others..Respondents anifer ty the ad in the Writing No. No.14544 of 2014,
decided on 26th May 2014 ances
Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964).
5, Sched,
.Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.Constitutional petition.Maintenance
allowance.Enhancement of quantum of maintenance for minor. - Reasonable level
of sustenance for minor ... Contentions of the defendant Jather) were that
Family Court was misread and evidence on record; that the defendant Jather) was
a laborer and was working on daily wages while he also supported his old
parents; The plaintiff (answerentent) failed to be able to record any cogent evidence-Validity-Contention
of the defendant that he was a laborer on daily wages just a bald assertion as
he did not fail to bring auy material or evidence In support of his
claim-Family Court was awarded the minority rate of Rs.1500 / - per month, according
to the version of the father that he was a laborer and could not afford to
afford his child on high level- The family court was rightly assumed the
minimum needs of a five-year-old girl, but no one could save the inflation rate
and the prices of ever-rising prices in the country-Appellate Court left no
option but to use its judicial mind to reach a reasonable level of sustenance
for the minor, which could not be left to try on the plea, which did not. 2.
S-134 was proven by the father that he had very meagre resources - that is the
claim of the defendant. he was a Labourer, meaning that he was an capable-body
person and he could get additional work to meet his obligation of providing his
child's child, at least, to a level that he was able to read on CL.C ull I…..
__________________________________¥__
2016 CL C 1668 Peshawar
(Bannu Bench)]
Before Ikramullah Khan and Muhammad Younis Thaheem,
JJ Syed NOBAHAR SHAH --- Petitioner versus
Mst. SALMA BIBI and 4 others.-Respondents
W.P.
No.410-B of 2013, decided on 26th March, 2015.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) S. 5, Sched-Recovery of Dower ---
Compromise was among the previous litigation in which the husband had admitted
that 50 tolas of gold ornaments were fixed as dower-Husband had promised to return
11 tolas gold ornaments to the rest and will return to his demand --- Validity
- nothing was, on record that the husband had left remaining gold or cash
amount in lieu to the wife --- Husband had failed to prove the remaining dower
ie 39 tolas gold ornaments to the wife - Husband was bound to return the same to his wife- constitutional
petition was dismissed in circumstances. Ipp. 1670, 1671] A & B
_____________________________________
2011 C L C 1211
[Quetta]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, JJ
ATTIQ AHMED KHAN----Petitioner
Versus
NOOR-UL-SABA and another----Respondents
Review Application No.4 of 2010 in Constitutional Petition No.595 of 2007, decided on 11th April, 2011.
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Dissolution of marriage on ground of 'Khula'---Re-union after dissolution of marriage---Review of the judgment by High Court, application for---Suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula was decreed by the Family Court---Defendant challenged judgment and decree of the Family Court in constitutional petition, which petition having been dismissed by the High Court, the defendant had filed application for review of the judgment and decree on the ground that parties had decided for re-union---Plaintiff on whose request marriage was dissolved on the ground of Khula, conceded the request of defendant and stated that parties had settled their dispute and decided to re-union and were no more willing to implement the decree of 'Khula'---Pronouncement of 'Khula' by the court was a single divorce, as the defendant husband never accepted it voluntarily---Such kind of dissolution of marriage was known as "Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen"---Before re-union in such-like cases "Halala" was neither condition precedent nor the decree of 'Khula' was a hurdle in the way of re-union---No provision of law precluded the spouses from re-union, however, only condition was to perform a fresh 'Nikah'---Since, re-union of the parties after decree of 'Khula' was a result of a fresh contract, the judgment and decree had no restraining effect upon re-marrying---Review of the judgments and decrees was not needed in circumstances---When the judgments and decrees attained finality, same would automatically become operative---Marriage having been dissolved, the judgments and decrees had become past and closed transactions---Once the judgment and decree had been implemented, those would not remain in field---No question of review thus would arise, in circumstances.
Fazal-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and others PLD 2003 Pesh. 1691 and Mst. Naila Parveen and otherrs v. The State and 2 others PLD 2011 Lah. 37 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XLVII, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Review of judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being an original jurisdiction, broad rules of the Civil Procedure Code were applicable---Right of review was a substantive right, provided by the Code, enabling correction of an error or a mistake in a judgment, to prevent injustice being done by the court---Such was a step towards correction of a decision, but in no case it was a rehearing on merits---Judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction could be reviewed subject to the grounds, contemplated under O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C. ---Review of an order or decree could be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, on account of some mistake or error, apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reasons---Compromise arrived at between the parties, after a decision, would not come within any of grounds for review---Judgments and decrees could not be reviewed on basis of a compromise between the parties.
Talal Rind for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
ORDER
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.--- Facts in brief are that suit of the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" was decreed by the Family Judge-II, Quetta vide judgment and decree dated 1-9-2005. To challenge the judgment and decree, Constitutional Petition No.595 of 2007 was filed by the applicant/petitioner before this Court which was dismissed on 24th November, 2009.
2. Now the applicant/petitioner has submitted an application for review of the judgment and decree on the ground that the parties have decided to re-union. It is important to mention here that on the first date of hearing, the respondent was also present and she conceded the request of the petitioner. She stated that they have settled their dispute, decided to re-union and are no more willing to implement the decree for "Khula".
3. We have asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether in view of the injunction of Islam, after passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage, the spouses can re-union, without observing the procedure of "Halala".
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already obtained a Fatwa from a recognized "Mufti". According to him, in case of re-union, after the dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" there is no condition of "Halala". The learned counsel states that in view of development, the judgment and decree dated 1-9-2007, passed by Family Judge-II, Quetta and judgment dated 24-11-2009, passed by this Court be set aside by accepting the application for review.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the statement of the respondent. In spite of obtaining the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" from the trial Court, the respondent/wife decided to re-join her husband. An identical issue arose before the Hon'able High Court of Peshawar, which has thoroughly been discussed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Malik Hamid Saeed in the case of Fazal-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and others, reported in PLD 2003, Pesh, page 169. Relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:---
(6) The principle of 'Khula' as laid down in various eminent commentaries on Muslim Law in the light of sayings of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is to the effect that when married parties disagree and are apprehensive that they cannot observe the bounds prescribed by the Divine Law the woman can release herself from the tie by giving up some property in return in consideration of which the husband is to give her a 'Khula' and when they have done this, a Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen, takes place. Hence Khula is a repudiation with consent and at the instance of the wife in which she agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marital tie. The decree granted to the respondent/wife in this case is also of the kind of 'Khula' because she was found unable by the trial Court to properly establish her assertion for the dissolution of marriage, but keeping in view the abhorrence shown by the wife towards the husband in her statement as well as her pleadings and the extent of unpleasantness of matrimonial relation between the parties, which even culminated into criminal proceedings, it was held by the trial Court that the relation between the parties has reached to the extent where the re-union between the two is impossible and only separation will be in the interest of both the parties.
(7) Maulana Muhammad Ashraf Ali in his book known as "Bahishiti Zaiwar", at page 20 (Fourth Part) has stated on the point as under:--
Two Fatwas; one by Mufti Saifullah Haqqani of Jamia Darul-Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, and the other by Mufti Muhammad Naeem, District Khateeb of Kohat are also on the file, wherein it is stated that:---
and that:--
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that in case of divorce through 'Khula' it is not obligatory on the wife to re-marry a third person before entering into re-marriage tie with her first husband and same is the case here. The re-marriage with same husband of course would be subject to performance of another Nikah. Section 7(6) of the Muslim Family Laws, Ordinance also allows such re-union without 'Halala' hence we see no restraint either in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance or in the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah, not to allow the prayer of the husband for re-union with his wife when she is ready to live again as wife of the petitioner within the limits of God.
6. In the present case too, the marriage was dissolved at the request of the respondent. Pronouncement of "khula" by the Court is a single divorce, as the husband never accepted it voluntarily, hence this kind of dissolution of marriage is known as Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen. Relying upon the dictum laid in the above cited judgment, it is declared that before re-union in such-like cases "Halala" is neither a condition precedent, nor the decree of "Khula" is a hurdle in the way of re-union. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Naila Parveen and others v. The State and 2 others, reported in PLD 2011 Lahore 37. There is no provision of law precluding the spouses from re-union, however, the only condition is, to perform a fresh "Nikah".
7. Since, re-union of the parties, after the decree of "Khula" is a result of a fresh contract, therefore, the judgment and decree have no restraining effect upon re-marrying hence, there is no need to review the judgments and decrees. Moreover, when the judgments and decrees attained finality, it automatically become operative, resultantly, the marriage becomes dissolved, in such view of the matter, the judgments and decree become past and closed transaction. Once the judgment and decree have been implemented, these do not remain in field, as such, no question of review arises.
8. No doubt, constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court is an original jurisdiction, therefore, broad rules of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable. Right of a review is a substantive right, provided by the Code, enabling correction of an error or a mistake in a judgment, to prevent injustice being done by a Court. It is a step towards correction of a decision, but in no case, it is a rehearing on merits. Hence, a judgment passed in a constitutional jurisdiction can be reviewed, subject to the grounds, contemplated under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C.
9. Without prejudice to above, the application has been filed on the ground of settlement or compromise between the parties. Review of an order or decree can be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, on account of some mistake or error, apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. Compromise arrived at between the parties, after a decision, does not come within any of the stated grounds for review. Thus, on the basis of a compromise, the judgments and decrees cannot be reviewed.
10. In view of what has been stated and discussed above, the review application is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./36/Q Application dismissed.
[Quetta]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, JJ
ATTIQ AHMED KHAN----Petitioner
Versus
NOOR-UL-SABA and another----Respondents
Review Application No.4 of 2010 in Constitutional Petition No.595 of 2007, decided on 11th April, 2011.
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Dissolution of marriage on ground of 'Khula'---Re-union after dissolution of marriage---Review of the judgment by High Court, application for---Suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula was decreed by the Family Court---Defendant challenged judgment and decree of the Family Court in constitutional petition, which petition having been dismissed by the High Court, the defendant had filed application for review of the judgment and decree on the ground that parties had decided for re-union---Plaintiff on whose request marriage was dissolved on the ground of Khula, conceded the request of defendant and stated that parties had settled their dispute and decided to re-union and were no more willing to implement the decree of 'Khula'---Pronouncement of 'Khula' by the court was a single divorce, as the defendant husband never accepted it voluntarily---Such kind of dissolution of marriage was known as "Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen"---Before re-union in such-like cases "Halala" was neither condition precedent nor the decree of 'Khula' was a hurdle in the way of re-union---No provision of law precluded the spouses from re-union, however, only condition was to perform a fresh 'Nikah'---Since, re-union of the parties after decree of 'Khula' was a result of a fresh contract, the judgment and decree had no restraining effect upon re-marrying---Review of the judgments and decrees was not needed in circumstances---When the judgments and decrees attained finality, same would automatically become operative---Marriage having been dissolved, the judgments and decrees had become past and closed transactions---Once the judgment and decree had been implemented, those would not remain in field---No question of review thus would arise, in circumstances.
Fazal-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and others PLD 2003 Pesh. 1691 and Mst. Naila Parveen and otherrs v. The State and 2 others PLD 2011 Lah. 37 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XLVII, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Review of judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being an original jurisdiction, broad rules of the Civil Procedure Code were applicable---Right of review was a substantive right, provided by the Code, enabling correction of an error or a mistake in a judgment, to prevent injustice being done by the court---Such was a step towards correction of a decision, but in no case it was a rehearing on merits---Judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction could be reviewed subject to the grounds, contemplated under O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C. ---Review of an order or decree could be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, on account of some mistake or error, apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reasons---Compromise arrived at between the parties, after a decision, would not come within any of grounds for review---Judgments and decrees could not be reviewed on basis of a compromise between the parties.
Talal Rind for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
ORDER
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.--- Facts in brief are that suit of the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" was decreed by the Family Judge-II, Quetta vide judgment and decree dated 1-9-2005. To challenge the judgment and decree, Constitutional Petition No.595 of 2007 was filed by the applicant/petitioner before this Court which was dismissed on 24th November, 2009.
2. Now the applicant/petitioner has submitted an application for review of the judgment and decree on the ground that the parties have decided to re-union. It is important to mention here that on the first date of hearing, the respondent was also present and she conceded the request of the petitioner. She stated that they have settled their dispute, decided to re-union and are no more willing to implement the decree for "Khula".
3. We have asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether in view of the injunction of Islam, after passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage, the spouses can re-union, without observing the procedure of "Halala".
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already obtained a Fatwa from a recognized "Mufti". According to him, in case of re-union, after the dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" there is no condition of "Halala". The learned counsel states that in view of development, the judgment and decree dated 1-9-2007, passed by Family Judge-II, Quetta and judgment dated 24-11-2009, passed by this Court be set aside by accepting the application for review.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the statement of the respondent. In spite of obtaining the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula" from the trial Court, the respondent/wife decided to re-join her husband. An identical issue arose before the Hon'able High Court of Peshawar, which has thoroughly been discussed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Malik Hamid Saeed in the case of Fazal-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and others, reported in PLD 2003, Pesh, page 169. Relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:---
(6) The principle of 'Khula' as laid down in various eminent commentaries on Muslim Law in the light of sayings of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is to the effect that when married parties disagree and are apprehensive that they cannot observe the bounds prescribed by the Divine Law the woman can release herself from the tie by giving up some property in return in consideration of which the husband is to give her a 'Khula' and when they have done this, a Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen, takes place. Hence Khula is a repudiation with consent and at the instance of the wife in which she agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marital tie. The decree granted to the respondent/wife in this case is also of the kind of 'Khula' because she was found unable by the trial Court to properly establish her assertion for the dissolution of marriage, but keeping in view the abhorrence shown by the wife towards the husband in her statement as well as her pleadings and the extent of unpleasantness of matrimonial relation between the parties, which even culminated into criminal proceedings, it was held by the trial Court that the relation between the parties has reached to the extent where the re-union between the two is impossible and only separation will be in the interest of both the parties.
(7) Maulana Muhammad Ashraf Ali in his book known as "Bahishiti Zaiwar", at page 20 (Fourth Part) has stated on the point as under:--
Two Fatwas; one by Mufti Saifullah Haqqani of Jamia Darul-Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, and the other by Mufti Muhammad Naeem, District Khateeb of Kohat are also on the file, wherein it is stated that:---
and that:--
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that in case of divorce through 'Khula' it is not obligatory on the wife to re-marry a third person before entering into re-marriage tie with her first husband and same is the case here. The re-marriage with same husband of course would be subject to performance of another Nikah. Section 7(6) of the Muslim Family Laws, Ordinance also allows such re-union without 'Halala' hence we see no restraint either in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance or in the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah, not to allow the prayer of the husband for re-union with his wife when she is ready to live again as wife of the petitioner within the limits of God.
6. In the present case too, the marriage was dissolved at the request of the respondent. Pronouncement of "khula" by the Court is a single divorce, as the husband never accepted it voluntarily, hence this kind of dissolution of marriage is known as Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen. Relying upon the dictum laid in the above cited judgment, it is declared that before re-union in such-like cases "Halala" is neither a condition precedent, nor the decree of "Khula" is a hurdle in the way of re-union. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Naila Parveen and others v. The State and 2 others, reported in PLD 2011 Lahore 37. There is no provision of law precluding the spouses from re-union, however, the only condition is, to perform a fresh "Nikah".
7. Since, re-union of the parties, after the decree of "Khula" is a result of a fresh contract, therefore, the judgment and decree have no restraining effect upon re-marrying hence, there is no need to review the judgments and decrees. Moreover, when the judgments and decrees attained finality, it automatically become operative, resultantly, the marriage becomes dissolved, in such view of the matter, the judgments and decree become past and closed transaction. Once the judgment and decree have been implemented, these do not remain in field, as such, no question of review arises.
8. No doubt, constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court is an original jurisdiction, therefore, broad rules of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable. Right of a review is a substantive right, provided by the Code, enabling correction of an error or a mistake in a judgment, to prevent injustice being done by a Court. It is a step towards correction of a decision, but in no case, it is a rehearing on merits. Hence, a judgment passed in a constitutional jurisdiction can be reviewed, subject to the grounds, contemplated under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C.
9. Without prejudice to above, the application has been filed on the ground of settlement or compromise between the parties. Review of an order or decree can be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, on account of some mistake or error, apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. Compromise arrived at between the parties, after a decision, does not come within any of the stated grounds for review. Thus, on the basis of a compromise, the judgments and decrees cannot be reviewed.
10. In view of what has been stated and discussed above, the review application is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./36/Q Application dismissed.
______________________________________
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 436
PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Bookmark this Case DOLAT KHAN VS Mst. BAKHT
NISA
s. 5, Sched.-Civil
Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2) -Suit for recovery of maintenance
allowance for wife and minors - Ex parte decree-execution
proceedings-Petitioner (mêrê) and file application under S. 12 (2), CPC (which
was subsequently retracted) alleging that his wrong address was mentioned in
the plaintiff and that the ex-parte decree was received by fraud in the form of
he was not aware of the proceedings of the family court and below the court ex
parte decree-validity address of the petitioner on record as per its S.12 (2),
CPC and the appeal and he was a liar service. No reasonable reason was given by
the petitioner to show his non-appearance before the court in his application
for the presidency excluding the exit of the petitioner, had not received the
receipt of registered post in his application for ex-parte controverted decree
and under S.12 (2), C.PC. as well as in the appeals-application for setting
aside ex-part decree was filed after one year, which was the time was barred
and therefore the same was not justified by the courts below. - Record showed
that petitioner never paid any maintenance The wife and minors were contracted
second marriage, while the first wife along with her minor daughters lived with
her parents - Petitioner did not fulfill her obligations towards her first wife
as well as daughters - No illegity or infirmity was seen, constitutional
petition was dismissed in limine.
______________________________________
2018 CLC 1350 Lahore
(c) Dowry and Bridal Gifts
S.5-Dowry.-Vesting of dowry in the bride) gold ornaments were included in the bridal
gifts and were exclusive The property of wife ... Section 5 of the Dowry and
Bridal Gifts Act, 1976 clearly stated that the articles were given as dowry and
bridal gifts to the bride shall be remain property of the bride.
(d) Family Courts Act
(XXXV of 1964) - -S.5, Sched. & S.9 - Counter claim of gold ornaments by
husband-. Written statement --- Scope --- Neither S.9 nor Sched. of the S.5 of
the Family Courts Act, 1964 envisaged that the husband / defendant could
established counter claim of gold
ornaments in his written statement.
Regards Adv Irfan
hyder
____________¥________________________
Maintenance to
Christian minor wife
Divorce Act (IV of 1869)---
----Ss. 36 & 3(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Christian divorce---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance (alimony) for wife and minor was decreed concurrently---Contention of the husband (petitioner) was that Trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and courts below had not considered evidence in its true perspective---Validity---Husband had not raised the question of jurisdiction in his written statement, as such husband could not go beyond his pleadings and the provisions of S.3(2) of the Divorce Act, 1869 would apply to the present case, whereby the suit could be tried by a civil court in the area where the spouses resided or had been residing together---Since the parties belonged to the Christian faith, the grant of maintenance (alimony) to wife was covered under provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869, and the quantum of the maintenance allowance was to be in conformity with the provisions of S.36 of the Divorce Act, 1869---Findings of courts below could not be interfered with---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.
P L D 2013 Balochistan 59
QAMAR GILL---Petitioner
Versus
IRAM NATHANIEL and 2 others---Respondents
Divorce Act (IV of 1869)---
----Ss. 36 & 3(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Christian divorce---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance (alimony) for wife and minor was decreed concurrently---Contention of the husband (petitioner) was that Trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and courts below had not considered evidence in its true perspective---Validity---Husband had not raised the question of jurisdiction in his written statement, as such husband could not go beyond his pleadings and the provisions of S.3(2) of the Divorce Act, 1869 would apply to the present case, whereby the suit could be tried by a civil court in the area where the spouses resided or had been residing together---Since the parties belonged to the Christian faith, the grant of maintenance (alimony) to wife was covered under provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869, and the quantum of the maintenance allowance was to be in conformity with the provisions of S.36 of the Divorce Act, 1869---Findings of courts below could not be interfered with---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.
P L D 2013 Balochistan 59
QAMAR GILL---Petitioner
Versus
IRAM NATHANIEL and 2 others---Respondents
____________________________________
Reunion without halala
(Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
S. 7(6)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Re-marriage---Parties were husband and wife inter se and their marriage had been dissolved on the basis of Khula, vide ex parte decree dated 7-11-2009---Plea raised by parties was that suit for dissolution of marriage was filed on misunderstanding and both of them wanted to re-marry without intervening marriage (Hallala)---Validity---Approved mode of divorce, under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was by one "Talaq" and such mode was obligatory for husband to divorce by one mode of "Talaq" other than "Talaq-e-Ahsan"---Couple could remarry without any intervening marriage except where wife had been divorced thrice and third divorce had become effective and only in that case they could not remarry without "Hallala"---All divorces were revoc able under S.7(6) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---High Court allowed reunion of parties after revival of "Nikkah" particularly when wife was will ing to live again with her husband and to perform her matrimonial conjugal rights within the limits ordained by the Holy Quran and Sunnah---Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2013 PLD 209 KARACHI
(Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
S. 7(6)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Re-marriage---Parties were husband and wife inter se and their marriage had been dissolved on the basis of Khula, vide ex parte decree dated 7-11-2009---Plea raised by parties was that suit for dissolution of marriage was filed on misunderstanding and both of them wanted to re-marry without intervening marriage (Hallala)---Validity---Approved mode of divorce, under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was by one "Talaq" and such mode was obligatory for husband to divorce by one mode of "Talaq" other than "Talaq-e-Ahsan"---Couple could remarry without any intervening marriage except where wife had been divorced thrice and third divorce had become effective and only in that case they could not remarry without "Hallala"---All divorces were revoc able under S.7(6) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---High Court allowed reunion of parties after revival of "Nikkah" particularly when wife was will ing to live again with her husband and to perform her matrimonial conjugal rights within the limits ordained by the Holy Quran and Sunnah---Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2013 PLD 209 KARACHI
______________________________________
If prompt dower was
not paid on demand, wife could refuse to perform Conjugal obligations to her
husband
S. 5, Sched. & S.17---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower---Preliminary decree---Scope---Wife filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower wherein Family Court directed the husband to pay dower before decision of said suit---Contention of husband was that preliminary decree could not be passed in family cases---Validity---Husband had not paid dower to the wife---Dower was prompt in nature and it had to be paid on demand---Family Court in order to do substantial justice was competent to regulate its proceedings and pass order to promote interest of justice---Purpose and object behind enactment of S. 17 of Family Courts Act, 1964 was to facilitate the Family Court to bypass the lengthy and mundane procedure of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and to decide family matters expeditiously---Husband could not insist to defer the payment of dower till the conclusion of family suit---If prompt dower was not paid on demand, wife could refuse to perform Conjugal obligations to her husband---Pendency of suit for Conjugal right s against the wife could not be considered as an impediment for her to demand prompt dower from the husband---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 MLD 412 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TAHIR AYUB KHAN
Side Opponent : Mrs. ALIA ANWER
S. 5, Sched. & S.17---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower---Preliminary decree---Scope---Wife filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower wherein Family Court directed the husband to pay dower before decision of said suit---Contention of husband was that preliminary decree could not be passed in family cases---Validity---Husband had not paid dower to the wife---Dower was prompt in nature and it had to be paid on demand---Family Court in order to do substantial justice was competent to regulate its proceedings and pass order to promote interest of justice---Purpose and object behind enactment of S. 17 of Family Courts Act, 1964 was to facilitate the Family Court to bypass the lengthy and mundane procedure of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and to decide family matters expeditiously---Husband could not insist to defer the payment of dower till the conclusion of family suit---If prompt dower was not paid on demand, wife could refuse to perform Conjugal obligations to her husband---Pendency of suit for Conjugal right s against the wife could not be considered as an impediment for her to demand prompt dower from the husband---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 MLD 412 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TAHIR AYUB KHAN
Side Opponent : Mrs. ALIA ANWER
______________________________________
High Court observed
that the sustenm of Zakat can be linked to the family court to the extent that
if the Family Court was entitled to payable to the maintenance of the poor and
those who were to get the maintenance under the clause of eligible ersons To
obtain Zakat unds, then appropriate directions to Zakat and Ushr Council will
also be issued to the authorities to register the minorities as reqular
beneficiaries from District Bail-ul-Maal-Sindh Legal Help vou 9ulg sJgits PLD
2012 Lahore 445 ABDUL MAJEED V / ADJ) By Admin Liaqat Qureshi
____________________________________
1989 CLC 1650
NASIM AKHTAR-Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Respondent
Transfer Application No..628 / C of 1988, decided on 12Th December, 1988 West Pakistan Family Courts Act (xXXV of 1964)
S. 25-A-Wife can bring suit wherever she was presently residing even though temporarily-Wife brought suit for the dissolution of marriage to husband in place P earlier in time than the husband's suit against wife who was pending place L .Suit filed by her husband L 'was transferred to Court the court at place P keeping in view convenience of wife.
NASIM AKHTAR-Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Respondent
Transfer Application No..628 / C of 1988, decided on 12Th December, 1988 West Pakistan Family Courts Act (xXXV of 1964)
S. 25-A-Wife can bring suit wherever she was presently residing even though temporarily-Wife brought suit for the dissolution of marriage to husband in place P earlier in time than the husband's suit against wife who was pending place L .Suit filed by her husband L 'was transferred to Court the court at place P keeping in view convenience of wife.
____________________________________
Khula granted.
----S.5 & Sched. ---West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Suit was resisted by the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff had incorrectly displayed her residence in the plaint; that during pre-trial conciliation proceedings, his statement was not recorded; that in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by him, the plaintiff (wife) was not directed to submit her written statement; and that no plea of "khula" was taken in the plaint; but the Family Court decreed the suit on the basis of `khula'---Validity---Regarding ground of incorrectly displaying residence, plaintiff had clearly mentioned in the plaint that as threat to abduct her was hurled by the 4efendant, she had left the place and had taken up residence in place at R.K. along with her own brother; it was so that she had filed the suit on the basis of that residence---Under proviso to R.6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 a suit for dissolution of marriage could be filed where the wife ordinarily resided---Suit was rightly filed in court at place R.K. ', in circumstances---Recording of statement of defendant during the pre-trial conciliation proceedings was not a mandatory requirement of any law---Plea that version of `Khula' having not been entered into the plaint, suit could not be decreed, was a wrong assertion as the contents of the plaint had shown conversely to the plea raised by the petitioner---Plaintiff had categorically stated that she was a student of B.A. and defendant was illiterate, who had extended threats to her to leave the college and the education and get `rukhsati' performed with him; it was clearly mentioned in the plaint that she had got severe hatred against the defendant and could not live with him in any circumstances---Family Court, in circumstances had passed the decree on the basis of `khula' by fixing consideration amounting to Rs.500---Was not necessary that there must be used word of "khula" in the plaint---Family Court, in circumstances, had rightly ,decreed suit and said decree could not be declared illegal and unlawful.
2009 Y L R 1700 [Lahore]
Before Sh. Hakim Ali, J
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL---Petitioner
Versus
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, RAHIM YAR KHAN and another---
Respondents
______________________________________
----S.5 & Sched. ---West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Suit was resisted by the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff had incorrectly displayed her residence in the plaint; that during pre-trial conciliation proceedings, his statement was not recorded; that in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by him, the plaintiff (wife) was not directed to submit her written statement; and that no plea of "khula" was taken in the plaint; but the Family Court decreed the suit on the basis of `khula'---Validity---Regarding ground of incorrectly displaying residence, plaintiff had clearly mentioned in the plaint that as threat to abduct her was hurled by the 4efendant, she had left the place and had taken up residence in place at R.K. along with her own brother; it was so that she had filed the suit on the basis of that residence---Under proviso to R.6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 a suit for dissolution of marriage could be filed where the wife ordinarily resided---Suit was rightly filed in court at place R.K. ', in circumstances---Recording of statement of defendant during the pre-trial conciliation proceedings was not a mandatory requirement of any law---Plea that version of `Khula' having not been entered into the plaint, suit could not be decreed, was a wrong assertion as the contents of the plaint had shown conversely to the plea raised by the petitioner---Plaintiff had categorically stated that she was a student of B.A. and defendant was illiterate, who had extended threats to her to leave the college and the education and get `rukhsati' performed with him; it was clearly mentioned in the plaint that she had got severe hatred against the defendant and could not live with him in any circumstances---Family Court, in circumstances had passed the decree on the basis of `khula' by fixing consideration amounting to Rs.500---Was not necessary that there must be used word of "khula" in the plaint---Family Court, in circumstances, had rightly ,decreed suit and said decree could not be declared illegal and unlawful.
2009 Y L R 1700 [Lahore]
Before Sh. Hakim Ali, J
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL---Petitioner
Versus
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, RAHIM YAR KHAN and another---
Respondents
______________________________________
----S. 5,
Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Husband denying that dowry
articles were ever given to wife---Proof---Wife appeared as a witness and gave
details of dowry articles and placed her affidavit on record---Wife was
subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing helpful to the husband could
be brought on record---Witness who appeared on behalf of wife categorically
stated that dowry articles were given by her parents at the time of her
marriage---Said witness was not cross-examined on such point---In the absence
of cross-examination on the question of dowry articles, the statement of said
witness was to be presumed to be true which corroborated the evidence of
wife---Other than denying delivery of dowry articles, the husband did not
produce any evidence of any nature to substantiate his position---Furthermore,
the list of dowry articles provided by wife consisted of articles of daily use
which were generally given to brides at the time of their marriages---Said list
did not contain any article(s) which may be termed as extravagate or beyond the
financial resources of the wife's family---Supreme Court observed that giving
dowry articles to daughters was in line with custom/tradition and practices
which were deeply rooted in the society and were followed by parents of all
classes irrespective of their financial status---Suit for recovery of dowry
articles had been rightly decreed---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed
accordingly.
2017 S C M R 393
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J., Umar Ata Bandial and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ
SHAFIQUE SULTAN---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. ASMA FIRDOUS and others---Respondents
2017 S C M R 393
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J., Umar Ata Bandial and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ
SHAFIQUE SULTAN---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. ASMA FIRDOUS and others---Respondents
______________________________________
Trial Court decides
the extent to the extent of 65% of the dowry arbitrators claiming that the
woman on the ground that marriage 6-1 / 2 years lasted and the dowry articles
of value accounted on depreciation such as Careful and circumspect approach
showed due to the application of the mind by trial trial and was supported by
the case's record by the Sindh Lawyer Help Group
2017 S CM R 393 (SHAFIQUE SULTAN VSTS ASMA
FIRDOUS)
______________________________________
PLD.2018.S.C.819.
Family court in cases of maintenance allowance should always ascertained
The salary, income and earning of the defendant then pass the order for maintenance allowance to minor and for hiswife too…
Family court in cases of maintenance allowance should always ascertained
The salary, income and earning of the defendant then pass the order for maintenance allowance to minor and for hiswife too…
______________________________________
Order of attachment of
the house of the father passed by the Family Court in execution of the decree
passed by it, was in accordance with law.
Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---
Sindh Legal Help Group
قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Family Court---Decree for maintenance---Execution of decree---Attachment of immoveable property---Gift/sale of such attached property by judgment-debtor---Sham transaction to defeat the purpose of decree---Daughter had filed a suit for maintenance against her father---Suit was decreed, however, father failed to honour the same---Father was detained in civil prison, but was subsequently released when his second wife gave an undertaking before the court to satisfy the decree---Four days after his release father gifted his property/house to his wife, who further sold the same to the petitioner---Daughter moved an application before the Executing Court for recovery of decretal amount by selling the house in question---Executing Court declared the gift/hiba made by the father to be unlawful and proceeded to attach the house for purpose of satisfying the decree---Validity---Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in the eye of law for that the wife i.e. donee of the gift did not have legal title to the house to sell the same to the petitioner---Both gift as well as the purported sale in favour of the petitioner were nothing but sham transactions and its purpose was to ensure that the decree for maintenance was not satisfied---Decree was for the maintenance of the daughter, but unfortunately, the father in sheer disregard of his parental obligation had indulged in making unlawful transactions---Court while exercising parental jurisdiction could not just sit and be a spectator in such unholy and unlawful conduct of the father---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---Order of attachment of the house of the father passed by the Family Court in execution of the decree passed by it, was in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Muhammad Tariq v. Zulfiqar Ali and others 2005 SCMR 1395; Noor Muhammad v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and others 1992 CLC 1470 and Syed Ashad Ali Sadiq v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another 1992 CLC 1323 distinguished.
Sindh Legal Help Group قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
(b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Non-applicability of C.P.C---Technical trappings of execution of decree provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were excluded from application before the Family Court in execution of a decree for maintenance.
(c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 90---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Attachment and sale of judgment-debtor's immoveable property---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provided various modes of recovery of arrears of land revenue and one of the modes provided was selling the immovable property of the defaulter.
Sindh Legal Help Group قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
2015 S C M R 128
AMJAD IQBAL---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. NIDA SOHAIL and others---
Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---
Sindh Legal Help Group
قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Family Court---Decree for maintenance---Execution of decree---Attachment of immoveable property---Gift/sale of such attached property by judgment-debtor---Sham transaction to defeat the purpose of decree---Daughter had filed a suit for maintenance against her father---Suit was decreed, however, father failed to honour the same---Father was detained in civil prison, but was subsequently released when his second wife gave an undertaking before the court to satisfy the decree---Four days after his release father gifted his property/house to his wife, who further sold the same to the petitioner---Daughter moved an application before the Executing Court for recovery of decretal amount by selling the house in question---Executing Court declared the gift/hiba made by the father to be unlawful and proceeded to attach the house for purpose of satisfying the decree---Validity---Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in the eye of law for that the wife i.e. donee of the gift did not have legal title to the house to sell the same to the petitioner---Both gift as well as the purported sale in favour of the petitioner were nothing but sham transactions and its purpose was to ensure that the decree for maintenance was not satisfied---Decree was for the maintenance of the daughter, but unfortunately, the father in sheer disregard of his parental obligation had indulged in making unlawful transactions---Court while exercising parental jurisdiction could not just sit and be a spectator in such unholy and unlawful conduct of the father---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---Order of attachment of the house of the father passed by the Family Court in execution of the decree passed by it, was in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Muhammad Tariq v. Zulfiqar Ali and others 2005 SCMR 1395; Noor Muhammad v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and others 1992 CLC 1470 and Syed Ashad Ali Sadiq v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another 1992 CLC 1323 distinguished.
Sindh Legal Help Group قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
(b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Non-applicability of C.P.C---Technical trappings of execution of decree provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were excluded from application before the Family Court in execution of a decree for maintenance.
(c) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 90---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Attachment and sale of judgment-debtor's immoveable property---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provided various modes of recovery of arrears of land revenue and one of the modes provided was selling the immovable property of the defaulter.
Sindh Legal Help Group قانوني مدد وارو گروپ
2015 S C M R 128
AMJAD IQBAL---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. NIDA SOHAIL and others---
_____________________________________
2002 SCMR 1408
Copy of Nikahnama produced did not require production of witnesses to prove the same
Copy of Nikahnama produced did not require production of witnesses to prove the same
_____________________________________
INTERIM MAINTENANCE REDUCED
2007 YLR 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID JAVEED
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN
---S. 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--Interim maintenance allowance---Reduction in---Interim order granting Rs.3000 per month as maintenance allowance to minors was challenged by petitioner contending that monthly salary of petitioner was Rs.3000 hence it was too exorbitant for him to pay his whole salary as maintenance allowance---Held, as the financial position of petitioner was yet to be' determined therefore to facilitate the petitioner as well as to watch the interest of minors maintenance allowance being interim was 'reduced from Rs.3,000 per month to Rs.2,000 per month---Final determination of maintenance allowance however would be decided by Judge Family Court in accordance with evidence to be brought by parties on record---In case of default in payment of said Rs.2,000 per month defence of petitioner would automatically be struck off in suit of recovery of maintenance.
Citation Name : 2007 MLD 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MAKHDOOM ALI
Side Opponent : Mst. RAZIA SULTANA
--Ss. 5, Sched. & 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for maintenance---Interim maintenance, grant of---Interim maintenance was a tentative amount which was to be fixed on careful examination of available evidence---Such amount could be either enhanced or reduced at the time of final adjudication of the matter---Exorbitant amount of interim maintenance allowance should not be fixed as non-compliance of payment of interim maintenance, would entail penal consequences---Amount of Rs.10,000 per month which Judge Family Court had fixed seemed to be exorbitant as it was yet to be proved through cogent evidence that petitioner had other source of income through which he could pay easily said amount---Allowing constitutional petition impugned order was modified
2007 YLR 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID JAVEED
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN
---S. 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--Interim maintenance allowance---Reduction in---Interim order granting Rs.3000 per month as maintenance allowance to minors was challenged by petitioner contending that monthly salary of petitioner was Rs.3000 hence it was too exorbitant for him to pay his whole salary as maintenance allowance---Held, as the financial position of petitioner was yet to be' determined therefore to facilitate the petitioner as well as to watch the interest of minors maintenance allowance being interim was 'reduced from Rs.3,000 per month to Rs.2,000 per month---Final determination of maintenance allowance however would be decided by Judge Family Court in accordance with evidence to be brought by parties on record---In case of default in payment of said Rs.2,000 per month defence of petitioner would automatically be struck off in suit of recovery of maintenance.
Citation Name : 2007 MLD 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MAKHDOOM ALI
Side Opponent : Mst. RAZIA SULTANA
--Ss. 5, Sched. & 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for maintenance---Interim maintenance, grant of---Interim maintenance was a tentative amount which was to be fixed on careful examination of available evidence---Such amount could be either enhanced or reduced at the time of final adjudication of the matter---Exorbitant amount of interim maintenance allowance should not be fixed as non-compliance of payment of interim maintenance, would entail penal consequences---Amount of Rs.10,000 per month which Judge Family Court had fixed seemed to be exorbitant as it was yet to be proved through cogent evidence that petitioner had other source of income through which he could pay easily said amount---Allowing constitutional petition impugned order was modified
_____________________________________
Divorce deed not
required to be written on stamp paper . 2004 _ CLC _ 984
Oral divorce , notice of divorce not sent to chairman , no talaq . PLD _ 2006 _ SC _ 457
Defendant not established pronouncement of talaq in terms of s. 7 , no talaq . PLD _ 2004 _ SC _ 142
Father not obliged to maintain adult son . 2013 _ AC _ 708
Permission to second marriage granted by wife subject to transfer of property to her by husband . PLD _ 2003 _ Sc _ 128
Failure to obtain permission for second marriage from Arbitration council does not render second marriage as void . 1991 _ CLC _ note 238 _ page 184
Marriage registration . Where a person does not report marriage to Nikah Registrar held liable for punishment u / s 5(4). 2009 _ MLD _ 962
Second marriage without permission punishment of one year and fine awarded . 2000 _ CLC _ 384
Lady abducted nikah performed , nikah not valid without free will . PLD _ 2006 _ SC _ 489
Presumption of truth is attached to entry in nikahnama . 2005 _ YLR _ 156
Non registration of marriage is an offence but does not derogate from validity of nikah . PLJ _ 2010 _ FSC _ 222 & PLJ _ 2009 _ Lah _ 576
Nikah performed under coercion without consent , no nikah . 2005 _ MLD _ 1615
Marked document can not be read in evidence . 2011 _ Scmr _ 1011 & 2010 _ MLD _ 1162
Public interest litigation does not envisage the strict concept of aggrieved person or locus standi . 2012 _ Scmr _ 1651 & PLD _ 2012 _ Quetta _ 31 Marked document can not be read in evidence . 2011 _ Scmr _ 1011 & 2010 _ MLD _ 1162
Public interest litigation does not envisage the strict concept of aggrieved person or locus standi . 2012 _ Scmr _ 1651 & PLD _ 2012 _ Quetta _ 31
Oral divorce , notice of divorce not sent to chairman , no talaq . PLD _ 2006 _ SC _ 457
Defendant not established pronouncement of talaq in terms of s. 7 , no talaq . PLD _ 2004 _ SC _ 142
Father not obliged to maintain adult son . 2013 _ AC _ 708
Permission to second marriage granted by wife subject to transfer of property to her by husband . PLD _ 2003 _ Sc _ 128
Failure to obtain permission for second marriage from Arbitration council does not render second marriage as void . 1991 _ CLC _ note 238 _ page 184
Marriage registration . Where a person does not report marriage to Nikah Registrar held liable for punishment u / s 5(4). 2009 _ MLD _ 962
Second marriage without permission punishment of one year and fine awarded . 2000 _ CLC _ 384
Lady abducted nikah performed , nikah not valid without free will . PLD _ 2006 _ SC _ 489
Presumption of truth is attached to entry in nikahnama . 2005 _ YLR _ 156
Non registration of marriage is an offence but does not derogate from validity of nikah . PLJ _ 2010 _ FSC _ 222 & PLJ _ 2009 _ Lah _ 576
Nikah performed under coercion without consent , no nikah . 2005 _ MLD _ 1615
Marked document can not be read in evidence . 2011 _ Scmr _ 1011 & 2010 _ MLD _ 1162
Public interest litigation does not envisage the strict concept of aggrieved person or locus standi . 2012 _ Scmr _ 1651 & PLD _ 2012 _ Quetta _ 31 Marked document can not be read in evidence . 2011 _ Scmr _ 1011 & 2010 _ MLD _ 1162
Public interest litigation does not envisage the strict concept of aggrieved person or locus standi . 2012 _ Scmr _ 1651 & PLD _ 2012 _ Quetta _ 31
______________________________________
C 2007 SCMR
1768 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : AHMAD YAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHINIOT, DISTRICT JHANG
---S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22---Suit for recovery of dowry. articles by former wife against her ex-husband was decreed by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court and husband had not filed appeal against said order, but simply filed cross-objections to the appeal filed by the lady---Effect---Held, under S.17, West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964 no provision of C.P.C. except Ss.10 & 11 was applicable to the proceedings before the family Court---Filing of cross-objections being a phenomenon purely of C.P.C. laid down in O.XLI, R.22, was not extendable to proceedings under West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Husband in circumstances, would be deemed to have not filed any appeal before the First Appellate Court and would be deemed to have accepted the decree granted by the Trial Court.
Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 1944 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. NOSHEEN QAMAR
Side Opponent : SHAH ZAMAN KHATTAK
---S. 5---Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), S.2---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Divorce---Recovery of dower---Plea of cruelty---Non-filing of cross objections---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether finding of family Court that issue of cruelty was not proved, was not in accordance with the evidence and reasoning of family Court itself; whether in the circumstances of the case, could it not be said that family Court had not dissolved the marriage on the ground of Khula: whether High Court did not err in law by observing that wife had not challenged the findings on issue of cruelty because decree was in her favour which she could. under O.XLI, R.22 C.P.C. defend even on the ground decided against her; whether the principle that if wife had been compelled by ill-treatment of husband to seek for divorce, it was unlawful for him to take indemnity and if man had forced the woman to accept Khula, a Talaq would take place without any liability to pay the indemnity; whether dower was not a benefit arising out of marriage to be restored to husband in case of dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula; whether in absence of specific demand by husband or indemnity in the form of waiver of cash dower of Rs.200,000, High Court could grant husband the indemnity; whether rule laid by High Court in the cases titled Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mst. Ume Kalsoom and another, reported as PLD 1975 Lah. 805 and Noor Muhammad v. Judge, family Court. Burewala, District Vehari and another, reported as PLD 1989 Lah. 31, did not lay down the correct law; and whether decree of cash dower could be collaterally impeached before High Court during pendency of appeal before Lower Appellate Court.
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1213 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : AZRA BI
Side Opponent : ZAFAR IQBAL
----S. 5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.XLI, R.22---Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in respect of disputes falling under provisions of family Courts Act 1964---Civil Procedure Code was not applicable in respect of disputes which fell under provisions of West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Shariat Court, in circumstances, could not invoke its powers under O. XLI, R.22, C.P.C. to receive in evidence documents which were filed by party at belated stage in Trial Court or were filed along-with a separate application before Shariat Court.
Citation Name : 1984 SCMR 232 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : HALIMAN HANIF MOONNOO
Side Opponent : ISMAT KAMAL
----Art. 185 (3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 22--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 169-Ex parte decree-Service of notice for date of hearing-Unnecessary hurry with hearing of case respondent-petitioner not properly impleaded nor any occasion arose for situation to justify early hearing no proper attempt made to serve petitioner personally or to affix notice on permanent residence of petitioner who was member of well-known family of area-Supreme Court converted petition into appeal and remanded case to High Court for fresh decision.
Side Appellant : AHMAD YAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHINIOT, DISTRICT JHANG
---S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22---Suit for recovery of dowry. articles by former wife against her ex-husband was decreed by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court and husband had not filed appeal against said order, but simply filed cross-objections to the appeal filed by the lady---Effect---Held, under S.17, West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964 no provision of C.P.C. except Ss.10 & 11 was applicable to the proceedings before the family Court---Filing of cross-objections being a phenomenon purely of C.P.C. laid down in O.XLI, R.22, was not extendable to proceedings under West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Husband in circumstances, would be deemed to have not filed any appeal before the First Appellate Court and would be deemed to have accepted the decree granted by the Trial Court.
Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 1944 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. NOSHEEN QAMAR
Side Opponent : SHAH ZAMAN KHATTAK
---S. 5---Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), S.2---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Divorce---Recovery of dower---Plea of cruelty---Non-filing of cross objections---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether finding of family Court that issue of cruelty was not proved, was not in accordance with the evidence and reasoning of family Court itself; whether in the circumstances of the case, could it not be said that family Court had not dissolved the marriage on the ground of Khula: whether High Court did not err in law by observing that wife had not challenged the findings on issue of cruelty because decree was in her favour which she could. under O.XLI, R.22 C.P.C. defend even on the ground decided against her; whether the principle that if wife had been compelled by ill-treatment of husband to seek for divorce, it was unlawful for him to take indemnity and if man had forced the woman to accept Khula, a Talaq would take place without any liability to pay the indemnity; whether dower was not a benefit arising out of marriage to be restored to husband in case of dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula; whether in absence of specific demand by husband or indemnity in the form of waiver of cash dower of Rs.200,000, High Court could grant husband the indemnity; whether rule laid by High Court in the cases titled Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mst. Ume Kalsoom and another, reported as PLD 1975 Lah. 805 and Noor Muhammad v. Judge, family Court. Burewala, District Vehari and another, reported as PLD 1989 Lah. 31, did not lay down the correct law; and whether decree of cash dower could be collaterally impeached before High Court during pendency of appeal before Lower Appellate Court.
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1213 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : AZRA BI
Side Opponent : ZAFAR IQBAL
----S. 5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.XLI, R.22---Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in respect of disputes falling under provisions of family Courts Act 1964---Civil Procedure Code was not applicable in respect of disputes which fell under provisions of West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Shariat Court, in circumstances, could not invoke its powers under O. XLI, R.22, C.P.C. to receive in evidence documents which were filed by party at belated stage in Trial Court or were filed along-with a separate application before Shariat Court.
Citation Name : 1984 SCMR 232 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : HALIMAN HANIF MOONNOO
Side Opponent : ISMAT KAMAL
----Art. 185 (3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 22--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 169-Ex parte decree-Service of notice for date of hearing-Unnecessary hurry with hearing of case respondent-petitioner not properly impleaded nor any occasion arose for situation to justify early hearing no proper attempt made to serve petitioner personally or to affix notice on permanent residence of petitioner who was member of well-known family of area-Supreme Court converted petition into appeal and remanded case to High Court for fresh decision.
_____________________________________
Mandatory duty of
husband about maintenance of wife excellent judgment
2014 YLR 1563 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. SHAZIA
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NASIR
Maintenance to wife---Scope---In Islam husband is bound to maintain his wife throughout the period she remains in matrimonial bonds with him---Maintenance is neither nature of gift nor a benefit but is an undeniable legal obligation of husband to provide maintenance to his wife---When a woman surrenders herself into the custody of her husband, it is incumbent upon husband thenceforth to supply her with food, clothing and lodging, whether she be a Muslim or an infidel because such is the precept in the Holy Quran---Maintenance is considered a debt upon husband in conformity with his tenet---Maintenance is an obligation which is one of the essential ingredients of marriage, liable to suspen sion or forfeiture under certain circumstances.
Liaqat Ali
2014 YLR 1563 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. SHAZIA
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NASIR
Maintenance to wife---Scope---In Islam husband is bound to maintain his wife throughout the period she remains in matrimonial bonds with him---Maintenance is neither nature of gift nor a benefit but is an undeniable legal obligation of husband to provide maintenance to his wife---When a woman surrenders herself into the custody of her husband, it is incumbent upon husband thenceforth to supply her with food, clothing and lodging, whether she be a Muslim or an infidel because such is the precept in the Holy Quran---Maintenance is considered a debt upon husband in conformity with his tenet---Maintenance is an obligation which is one of the essential ingredients of marriage, liable to suspen sion or forfeiture under certain circumstances.
Liaqat Ali
______________________________________
Non registration of
dower deed
2012 CLC 206 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MASAL KHAN
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAH TARINA
Ss. 129 & 123---Transfer of property by Muslim husband in favour of his wife in lieu of dower through unregistered Dower Deed---Validity---Such transaction for being Hiba-bil-Ewaz would not require registration---Non-registration of Dower Deed would not affect its legal value---Principles
2012 CLC 206 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MASAL KHAN
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAH TARINA
Ss. 129 & 123---Transfer of property by Muslim husband in favour of his wife in lieu of dower through unregistered Dower Deed---Validity---Such transaction for being Hiba-bil-Ewaz would not require registration---Non-registration of Dower Deed would not affect its legal value---Principles
________________________________________
U/S 6(5) of M.F.L.O .
is triable by Ilaqa Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the same is alleged to
have been committed
PLD 1991 LAH 247
PLD 1991 LAH 247
If father was not able
pay maintenance allowance of minors than local government and Bait ul Maal
would be able to maintenance to minors
*2018 CLC page 1786*
*2018 CLC page 1786*
________________________________________
یکطرفہ ڈگری پاس ہونے
Respondent کے پتہ پر ڈگری کی مصدقہ کاپی بھیجے۔_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر والد کے پاس نابالغ کی پرورش کے لیے ذرائع نہیں ہیں تو والدہ کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ نابالغ کی پرورش کرے۔ اس کے علاوہ اس کیس لاء میں تفصیل سےنابالغان کے حوالےسے والدین کی ذمہ داریوں کا تعین کیا گیا ہے۔_
_*PLD 2013 SC 557*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی عدالت یکطرفہ ڈکری پاس کرنے سے پہلے مدعا علیہ کو نوٹس حاضری بھیج سکتی ہے۔_
_*2017 PLJ Pesh 01*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کیس کے اجراء میں ضامن کی یہ قانونی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ کسی بھی ڈیفالٹ کی صورت میں جہیز ادا کرے۔_
_*2016 PLD Pesh 109*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خلع کے علاوہ باقی حقائق کے خلاف درخواست منسوخی ڈگری کی مدت اس وقت شروع ہوگی جب مدعا علیہ/ججمنٹ ڈیٹر کو اس ڈکری کا علم ہوگا۔_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی کو حق مہر ادا نہ کرنا بھی ظلم/Cruelty ہے۔ جوکہ خلع کے لیے بہترین گراؤنڈ ہے۔_
_*2018 CLC 93*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کیس میں Interim Order کے خلاف رِٹ پٹیشن نہیں ہوسکتی۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹ کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ وہ فیملی کیس کا 6 ماہ کے اندر اندر فیصلہ کرے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1231*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_باپ اپنے بچے کو خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔ اس کا یہ بہانہ نہیں سنا جائے گا کہ اس کے پاس ذرائع آمدن نہیں ہیں۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی خاوند کی Cruelty ثابت نہ کرسکی۔ عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ بیوی شادی کے تحائف واپس کرے اور شوہر حق مہر ادا کرے۔_
_*2018 PLD Pesh 34*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں خاوند کے لیے Past Maintenance کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_پردہ نشیں عورت اپنے والد کے ذریعے اپنی شہادت ریکارڈ کروا سکتی ہے اگر اس کے والد کو کیس حالات کا اچھی طرح سے پتہ ہوتو۔_
_*2002 CLC 1336*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں اجراء کی درخواست کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہائی کورٹ فُل بینچ نے فیملی قوانین کی تشریح کرتے وقت یہ قرار دیا کہ فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ 1964 اور مسلم فیملی لاز آرڈینیس 1961 کی متعلقہ دفعات غیرقانونی ہیں کہ خلع کی صورت میں بیوی کو حق مہر کی رقم بھی واپس کرنی پڑے گی جبکہ اسلامی اصولوں کے تحت اسے صرف شادی کے تحائف واپس کرنے چاہئیں۔_
_*PLD 2009 Pesh 92*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں بیوی/عورت رہتی ہوگی اسی جگہ فیملی کیس دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ علاقائی اختیار سماعت نہیں دیکھا جائے گا۔_
_*PLD 2006 Pesh 189*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_طلاق یافتہ بچی اگر ماں کے پاس ہوتو باپ اس کا خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2012 Lah 43*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ماں بچے کا خرچہ باپ کو معاف بھی کردے تو باپ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_نکاح نامہ میں لکھی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں آتی ہے اور فیملی کورٹ اس حوالہ سے ڈکری پاس کرسکتی ہے۔_
_*PLD 2016 SC 613*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2009 Lah 227*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کی رقم مدعیہ کے والد کے بنک اکاؤنٹ میں جمع کروائی گئی۔ اب Controversy باپ اور بیٹی کے درمیان ہے۔ خاوند کو اس بات کا ذمہ دار نہیں ٹھہرایا جاسکتا۔ یہ سول کورٹ کا معاملہ ہے فیملی کورٹ کا نہیں۔_
_*2013 YLR 1903*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2011 Kar 196*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں طلائی زیورات یا انکی قیمت واپس کرنے کی ڈکری پاس ہوجائے تو اس صورت میں قیمت Date of Payment کے حساب سے دیکھی جائے گی۔_
_*2013 SCMR 1049*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جس کیس میں مدعیہ صرف طلائی زیورات کی بابت استدعا کرے اور ان کی مالیت کرنسی میں نہ بتائے تو اس صورت میں مدعاعلیہ کے پاس آپشن ہوگی کہ وہ یاتو طلائی زیورات بمطابق وزن واپس کرے یا پھر اتنی رقم ادا کرے جس سے اس وزن کے طلائی زیورات اوپن مارکیٹ سے خریدے جاسکیں۔_
_*2014 CLC 895*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہر باپ کا حق ہے کہ وہ اپنے بچے سے ملاقات غیر مشروط طریقے سے کرے۔ ملاقات کے لیے Surety Bonds مشروط کرنا غیرآئینی ہے اور اسے 199 کے تحت چیلنج کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2014 CLC 1168*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر Pendency کے دوران دعویٰ Partly واپس لیا جائے تو نیا سوٹ فائل کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ اس پر Res Judicata کا اصول لاگو نہیں ہوگا۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_معزز ہائیکورٹ نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ 99 فیصد سامان جہیز کے کیسز میں جھوٹ بولتی ہے کہ لِسٹ شادی کے وقت تیار کی گئی تھی۔ اور 1 فیصد کیسز میں وہ ضِد کرتی ہے کہ وہ جھوٹ نہیں بول رہی۔_
_*2013 MLD 939 Lah*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خرچہ نان و نفقہ ایک فائدہ نہیں بلکہ حق ہے۔ اگر خلع کے کیس میں خرچہ نان و نفقہ کو بطور شرط معاف کیا گیا تو یہ غیرقانونی ہے اور اسکی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں۔_
_*2012 MLD 1943*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_چونکہ CPC فیملی لاء پر اپلائی نہیں ہوتی مگر پھر بھی جو طریقہ کار CPC میں دیا گیا ہے انصاف کے بہترین حصول کے لیے وہ فیملی لاء میں اختیار کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹس ترمیمی ایکٹ 2015 کے تحت خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 سے 5 فیصد کیا گیا۔ لیکن اس فیصلہ میں معزز سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے دوبارہ خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 فیصد بحال کردیا۔_
_*2016 SCMR 2069*_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر والد کے پاس نابالغ کی پرورش کے لیے ذرائع نہیں ہیں تو والدہ کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ نابالغ کی پرورش کرے۔ اس کے علاوہ اس کیس لاء میں تفصیل سےنابالغان کے حوالےسے والدین کی ذمہ داریوں کا تعین کیا گیا ہے۔_
_*PLD 2013 SC 557*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی عدالت یکطرفہ ڈکری پاس کرنے سے پہلے مدعا علیہ کو نوٹس حاضری بھیج سکتی ہے۔_
_*2017 PLJ Pesh 01*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کیس کے اجراء میں ضامن کی یہ قانونی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ کسی بھی ڈیفالٹ کی صورت میں جہیز ادا کرے۔_
_*2016 PLD Pesh 109*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خلع کے علاوہ باقی حقائق کے خلاف درخواست منسوخی ڈگری کی مدت اس وقت شروع ہوگی جب مدعا علیہ/ججمنٹ ڈیٹر کو اس ڈکری کا علم ہوگا۔_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی کو حق مہر ادا نہ کرنا بھی ظلم/Cruelty ہے۔ جوکہ خلع کے لیے بہترین گراؤنڈ ہے۔_
_*2018 CLC 93*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کیس میں Interim Order کے خلاف رِٹ پٹیشن نہیں ہوسکتی۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹ کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ وہ فیملی کیس کا 6 ماہ کے اندر اندر فیصلہ کرے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1231*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_باپ اپنے بچے کو خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔ اس کا یہ بہانہ نہیں سنا جائے گا کہ اس کے پاس ذرائع آمدن نہیں ہیں۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی خاوند کی Cruelty ثابت نہ کرسکی۔ عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ بیوی شادی کے تحائف واپس کرے اور شوہر حق مہر ادا کرے۔_
_*2018 PLD Pesh 34*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں خاوند کے لیے Past Maintenance کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_پردہ نشیں عورت اپنے والد کے ذریعے اپنی شہادت ریکارڈ کروا سکتی ہے اگر اس کے والد کو کیس حالات کا اچھی طرح سے پتہ ہوتو۔_
_*2002 CLC 1336*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں اجراء کی درخواست کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہائی کورٹ فُل بینچ نے فیملی قوانین کی تشریح کرتے وقت یہ قرار دیا کہ فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ 1964 اور مسلم فیملی لاز آرڈینیس 1961 کی متعلقہ دفعات غیرقانونی ہیں کہ خلع کی صورت میں بیوی کو حق مہر کی رقم بھی واپس کرنی پڑے گی جبکہ اسلامی اصولوں کے تحت اسے صرف شادی کے تحائف واپس کرنے چاہئیں۔_
_*PLD 2009 Pesh 92*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں بیوی/عورت رہتی ہوگی اسی جگہ فیملی کیس دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ علاقائی اختیار سماعت نہیں دیکھا جائے گا۔_
_*PLD 2006 Pesh 189*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_طلاق یافتہ بچی اگر ماں کے پاس ہوتو باپ اس کا خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2012 Lah 43*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ماں بچے کا خرچہ باپ کو معاف بھی کردے تو باپ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_نکاح نامہ میں لکھی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں آتی ہے اور فیملی کورٹ اس حوالہ سے ڈکری پاس کرسکتی ہے۔_
_*PLD 2016 SC 613*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2009 Lah 227*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کی رقم مدعیہ کے والد کے بنک اکاؤنٹ میں جمع کروائی گئی۔ اب Controversy باپ اور بیٹی کے درمیان ہے۔ خاوند کو اس بات کا ذمہ دار نہیں ٹھہرایا جاسکتا۔ یہ سول کورٹ کا معاملہ ہے فیملی کورٹ کا نہیں۔_
_*2013 YLR 1903*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2011 Kar 196*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں طلائی زیورات یا انکی قیمت واپس کرنے کی ڈکری پاس ہوجائے تو اس صورت میں قیمت Date of Payment کے حساب سے دیکھی جائے گی۔_
_*2013 SCMR 1049*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جس کیس میں مدعیہ صرف طلائی زیورات کی بابت استدعا کرے اور ان کی مالیت کرنسی میں نہ بتائے تو اس صورت میں مدعاعلیہ کے پاس آپشن ہوگی کہ وہ یاتو طلائی زیورات بمطابق وزن واپس کرے یا پھر اتنی رقم ادا کرے جس سے اس وزن کے طلائی زیورات اوپن مارکیٹ سے خریدے جاسکیں۔_
_*2014 CLC 895*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہر باپ کا حق ہے کہ وہ اپنے بچے سے ملاقات غیر مشروط طریقے سے کرے۔ ملاقات کے لیے Surety Bonds مشروط کرنا غیرآئینی ہے اور اسے 199 کے تحت چیلنج کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2014 CLC 1168*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر Pendency کے دوران دعویٰ Partly واپس لیا جائے تو نیا سوٹ فائل کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ اس پر Res Judicata کا اصول لاگو نہیں ہوگا۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_معزز ہائیکورٹ نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ 99 فیصد سامان جہیز کے کیسز میں جھوٹ بولتی ہے کہ لِسٹ شادی کے وقت تیار کی گئی تھی۔ اور 1 فیصد کیسز میں وہ ضِد کرتی ہے کہ وہ جھوٹ نہیں بول رہی۔_
_*2013 MLD 939 Lah*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خرچہ نان و نفقہ ایک فائدہ نہیں بلکہ حق ہے۔ اگر خلع کے کیس میں خرچہ نان و نفقہ کو بطور شرط معاف کیا گیا تو یہ غیرقانونی ہے اور اسکی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں۔_
_*2012 MLD 1943*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_چونکہ CPC فیملی لاء پر اپلائی نہیں ہوتی مگر پھر بھی جو طریقہ کار CPC میں دیا گیا ہے انصاف کے بہترین حصول کے لیے وہ فیملی لاء میں اختیار کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹس ترمیمی ایکٹ 2015 کے تحت خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 سے 5 فیصد کیا گیا۔ لیکن اس فیصلہ میں معزز سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے دوبارہ خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 فیصد بحال کردیا۔_
_*2016 SCMR 2069*_
_______________________________________
S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance
Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAKIA FAROOQ
Side Opponent : CHARIMAN, UNION COUNCIL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----S. 7---Legality of Talaq and certificate that Talaq had become effective--Chairman, Arbitration Council could neither decide the question of legality of Talaq claimed to have been pronounced by the husband nor could he issue certificate that divorce had become effective.
Citation Name : 1990 MLD 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : EHSAN-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : SHAHNAZ BEGUM
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7---Talaq---Period of iddat in absence of resumption of marital ties---When notice of Talaq was served on behalf of husband to the Chairman concerned, and there was no resumption of marital ties within the period of ninety days, the period of iddat would be deemed to have coincided with the said ninety days.
Citation Name : 1990 CLC 1683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH BANDA
Side Opponent : KHURSHIDD BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7(3)---Talaq pronounced thrice in one sitting becomes effective immediately and in such eventuality, the question of its revocation does not arise.
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MNHAMMAD DIN
Side Opponent : SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA, DIVISION, SARGODHA
---Ss. 5, 7 & 8--Husband's right of divorce--Restrictions--Column 19 in Nikahnama--Object--When a line was drawn in space against Col. No.19 in Nikahnama provided for mentioning restriction, if any, on right of husband to divorce, that would mean that parties at time of Nikah did not agree to put restriction on right of husband to divorce--Such fact alone, held, would not advance case of husband that wife would not be entitled to recover anything from him inasmuch as Nikah was nothing but an agreement between parties--No bar in law exists for the parties to enter into another agreement restricting right of divorce of husband,
Citation Name : 1989 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KANIZ FATIMA
Side Opponent : WALI MUHAMMAD
Ss.7 & 8??Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2?A, 8, 199 & Sched. I, Part III??Provisions of Ss.7 & 8, Muslim ?Family Laws Ordinance are not repugnant to the basic concepts of Islam and constitute valid subsisting law??High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam in the context of Art.2?A of the Constitution (1973)??Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having been incorporated in the First Sched., Part III of the Constitution, same was exempted from operation of Art. 8(1) & (2) of Constitution-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having become a part of the Constitution, High Court has no jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution to declare any law which is protected under the Constitution to be invalid being repugnant to Injunctions of Islam??High Court, being a creation of the Constitution, is to make adjudication strictly in accordance with the Constitution and thus cannot undertake the job of declaring any par
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAILA GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Side Opponent : Rai GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 7--Talaq--Wife not residing within territorial jurisdiction of Arbitration Council, Chairman of which dealt with notice of Talaq--Certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq upon wife by husband, issued by said Chairman, held, was coram non judice and nullity in eye of law--Husband had categorically admitted that he never divorced his wife--Talaqnama purported to have been executed and signed by husband was a forged and fake document--Father of husband had been continuously exerting pressure on wife and husband to dissolve their marriage-Father of husband falsely involved the couple as also parents of wife in various criminal and civil cases--Genuineness of divorce deed was, therefore, doubtful and its voluntary character was not proved--Divorce deed purported to have been issued by husband was thus declared as a forged and fake document and certificate of divorce held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Citation Name : 1988 PLD 498 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAISTA ARSHI
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE, WARD NO. 48 LAHORE
S. 7--Divorce--Husband executed Talaqnama divorcing wife but before the expiry of 90 days and before the "Talaq" could become effective in terms of S.7(3) he intimated the Chairman that he wanted, rather he had withdrawn the notice of "Talaq"--Talaq, whether had become complete and binding and could not be revoked to make it a farce" according to Hanfi Fiqah before the intimation by husband to the Chairman.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Service of notice of divorce--Issue not framed by Court-Effect--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife--Wife taking plea that she having been divorced as a result of agreement and oath mentioned in divorce deed, such suit was not maintainable--While accepting fact of divorce, Trial Court decreed suit of husband for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that wife had failed to prove service of notice of divorce on husband--No issue on question of fact relating to sending of notice to Union Committee by wife--Wife, held, was prejudiced relating to defence against suit for restitution conjugal rights--Petitioner, on account of wrong issue had been denied due opportunity of defence in suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 2061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MANZOOR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, UNION COUNCIL JALAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUJRANWALA
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Talaq--Petitioner after divorcing his wife by sending written divorce to her and Chairman, Arbitration Council failed to appear before Chairman to substantiate fact whether in fact he had pronounced Talaq upon his wife or not-Chairman, held, was justified in law in consigning proceedings before him to the record.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 1496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 Ss. 7(1) & 8--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491--Talaq in the nature of Mubarat--Habeas corpus petition for--Whether irrevocable-- Detenue admitting her marriage with petitioner and wishing to go with him--Detenue's previous marriage with one 'B' allegedly subsisting as no Talaq from 'B' effected--Offence of Bigamy and Zina allegedly committed--Court on enquiry, finding performance of marriage of detenue with 'B' as Vatta in lieu of which sister of 'B' married to brother of detenue--Later relations between 'B' and detenue becoming strained and both marriages were decided to be mutually dissolved-Divorce-deed executed--'B' admitting execution of divorce-deed--Detenue believing to be divorced under mutual agreement, contracting second marriage with petitioner- -Talaq by mutual agreement, held, was in nature of Mubarat and had become irrevocable from date of-its execution and provision of revocation in S. 7 of Family Laws Ordinance was inapplicable in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA KHATOON
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSUF
---S.2--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Khula'-- Relations between parties becoming strained within a period of four years of marital life to the extent that they could not live happily together--Wife not only was beaten and thrown out from house of husband on one or two occasions but also character of her husband was bad and insisting on her to lead immoral life--Observations of Appellate Court that such fact could be hardly termed as habitual cruelty or would not be taken into consideration for purpose of Khula', held, were not proper--Case remanded to Appellate Court for disposal after considering plea of Khula' and satisfying its conscience that wife, if forced to live with husband would not be observing limits prescribed by God, and after fixing benefits, if any, to be returned by wife to her husband as consideration of Khula'.
Citation Name : 1987 PLD 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : PIR BAKHSH
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD
S. 7 & Sched.--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula--Contention of husband that wife was not entitled to succeed in obtaining decree from Judge, Family Court for dissolution of marriage as she had not been able to prove her allegations against him on the basis of any independent evidence inasmuch as the only witness examined by her was her own brother-Held, such contention was not capable of leading to interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction because there was no legal bar in the evidence of a close relation being accepted in proof of a certain fact--Judge Family Court had the requisite power and such acceptance of evidence could not be considered to be an act without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Side Opponent : SABO
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7--Khula--Wife having developed hatred against husband on account of fact that he compelled her to convert her sect--Held, spouses, could not lead their matrimonial life within limits prescribed by Allah--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula not interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1986 MLD 2569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHER KHATOON
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULXAN
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7(1)--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S,5--Notice of Talaq--Non-giving of--Effect--Where husband did not give notice of Talaq to Chairman and filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights within 90 days of alleged pronouncement of Talaq, such divorce, held, would be deemed to have been revoked by husband.
Citation Name : 1986 CLC 1722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL
--S.21--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss. 7 & 8- Dissolution of marriage--K hula -Return of benefits by wife—Determination of such benefits--Chairman of Union Council cannot go behind decree granted by Family Court--Chairman, after dissolution of marriage by Family Court, has to proceed in accordance with provisions of S.21 of the Act of 1964--Chairman is not expected to adjudicate upon liability of wife to return benefits to husband and in case of failure of reconciliation proceedings cannot treat decree as ineffective on rights of the parties.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 415 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ
Side Opponent : PARVEEN AKHTAR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S.7--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.7--Dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula--Wife seeking divorce, inter alia on ground of hatred towards husband--Five out of seven issues decided against wife--Such failure on her part to prove various issues in suit, held, did not necessarily mean that admitted rift between parties was w bout any cause because without cause there would not have been rift and parties would have been living together.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1985 PLD 319 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZIKRIA KHAN
Side Opponent : AFTAB ALI KHAN
S. 7-Divprce-Object, scope and application of -- S 7-Divorce-Whether divorce, after expiry of ninety days from date of receipt of notice of Talaq by Chairman, Union Council becomes effective-Whether Chairman is vested with authority to suspend its operation and annul divorce-Non-supply of copy of notice of Talaq to wife- -Effect.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALEEMA BIBI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
---S.5--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Divorce--Husband divorcing wife--Chairman Arbitration Council issuing a certificate making divorce effective and wife on basis of such certificate entering into second marriage and having children from second husband--Husband obtaining a decree of subsistence of conjugal rights from family Court and appellate Court--Courts while granting decree for conjugal rights leaning heavily against wife on ground that she had not produced witnesses whose names appeared on Talaqnama--Divorce sent to wife neither written ins her presence nor signed by husband or witnesses in her presence-Husband not denying his signature on Talaqnama in Examination-in-Chie; but doing so in cross-examination--Names of witnesses on Talaqnama not persons of her choice and not known to her-- Producing those persons witnesses in evidence, therefore, was too much and decision of Courts deciding issues against wife proceeded on irrelevant consideration in circumstances--Basic approach of two Courts below incorrect and leading to untenable conclusions--Courts below could have easily resorted to comparing signatures of respondent husband on Talaqnama with his admitted signatures on his plaint in suit for restitution of conjugal rights, written statement in suit for divorce and power-of-attorney, no fetters placed on powers of Court to adopt such a procedure in its persuit to find truth--Court could proceed on premises that ever procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition found against it law--Court in such circumstances cannot and should not sit like a distant spectator to witness a legal battle being fought before it by two adversaries--Court to exercise its own powers to prevent course of justice being deflected from its true path where circumstances so demand--Omission on part of Courts below, held, causing grave miscarriage of justice and reflecting adversely on future of wife as well as her children--Relief of restitution, of conjugal rights which rested in discretion of Court could not justifiably be granted to husband in circumstances--Court as Court of equity in its conscience could not compel husband to share bed and cohabit with her former husband when she had remarried with another person and had children from him--Orders of Courts below set aside and case remanded to District Judge for re-examining matter in appeal and resolving controvers in accordance with law and observations made by High Court.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASIR SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN
---- S. 7-Talaq-Notice-Once execution of divorce deed proved talaq, held, became effective after expiry of ninety days even if notice not served upon Chairman concerned.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 3330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAZIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ROSHAN
----S. 7-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Muhammadan Law-Khula-Wife filing suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and that husband being of a bad character had established illicit relations with his own brother's wife-Trial Court rejecting application of wife on grounds that no convincing evidence to prove allegation$ was forthcoming-Trial Court failing to take account of all circumstances and effect of allegations made, which normally led to a state of affairs where it would be difficult for spouses to live together within limits prescribed by Allah-Application of principle of Khula' on these grounds, held, required to be taken into account and could not be brushed aside simply for failure of wife to produce convincing evidence about cruelty etc.-- Order of Appellate Court for not taking into account the crucial controversy, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.--Provisional Constitution. Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.-[Khula].
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHUHAR
Side Opponent : GHULAM FATIMA
S. 7-Watta marriage-Divorce from both sides-Pronouncement of talaq by husband without notice to Chairman, Union Council us required by S. 7-Husband never revoked talaq expressly or otherwise-Talaq determined and separation by mutual consent-Subsequent conduct of husband sufficiently rebutting presumption that omission to give notice to Chairman, Union Council as required under S. 7, revokes talaq impleadly-Held, main object of S. 7 to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by talaq pronounced by husband unilaterally not defeated by non-giving of notice under S. 7 or 7(1) and did not render talaq ineffective in circumstances-Second marriage by divorcee after expiry of period of iddat was valid and child out of such wedlock legitimate.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM FATIMA
Side Opponent : SAT BHARAI
---S. 7-Divorce deed-No formality for execution of divorce deed or a notice or divorce prescribed-Mere non-observance of any formality would not denude deed of its genuineness-Execution or of divorce deed proved by two marginal witnesses-Divorce deed, held, cannot be regarded as a mere fabrication.
Citation Name : 1984 MLD 464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AKBLAQ AHMAD
Side Opponent : KISHWITR SULTANA
---Art.9--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Compromise application signed by parties and counsel placed on record--Stating that case be remanded for dissolving marriage on basis of Khula) by determining benefits if any received and directing return thereof--In view of compromise both judgments of lower Courts set aside and suit remitted for determination of benefits, if any, received--Marriage as per compromise stood dissolved.
Citation Name : 1984 PCRLJ 1352 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMANULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : EIDAT SHAH
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 --S. 7---Expiry of period of 90 days subsequent to pronouncement of talaq-Notice to Chairman--Ineffectiveness of divorce-Subsequent to pronouncement of talaq on expiry of period of 90 days, and in absence of any act or conduct on part of husband indicating revocation of his intention or taking her back, failure alone on part of husband to give notice of same to Chairman under S. 7(1), held, does not render divorce as ineffective, would only make husband liable to penalty.
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHIDA KHAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL REHIM KHAN
Ss. 7 & 8--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9-Dissolution of marriage-Findings of District Judge and Family Court on question of cruelty and non-maintenance by husband based upon appreciation of evidence-High Court, even if not agreeing with such findings, held, could not interfere in constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1983 PLD 549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RASHIDAN BIBI
Side Opponent : BASHIR AHMAD
Ss. 7 & 8-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Woman stating categorically that she would prefer to be shot dead rather to go to live with husband and willing to forego ail her claims in case her marriage dissolved on basis of Khula-Held, sufficient to . satisfy Court that two parties could certainly not live together within limits prescribed by God and woman entitled to get marriage dissolved on basis of Khula`.-[Khula]
Citation Name : 1982 PLD 825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQU
Side Opponent : AHMAD YAR
S. 7-Talak-Notice-Absence of notice, held, violation of S. 7 of Ordinance only-Muhammadan Law-Question whether provision of S. 7 repugnant to Qur'an and Sunnah-To be looked into by, Federal Shariat Court-Held, talak, if pronounced, cannot, for want of notice, be claimed to be ineffective.-[Muhammadan Law]
Citation Name : 1982 PLD 532 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MASOOD KHAN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL WAH
S. 7-Divorce-Divorce not routed through procedure contemplated by S. 7 of Ordinance, held, does not become effective.
Citation Name : 1982 PCRLJ 625 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
-- S. 7 (3)-Talaq, effectiveness of-Wife going back to house of her husband after notice of talaq written by her husband and living in his house as his wife and giving birth to a son also-None of parties taking part in reconciliation proceedings---Mere fact that accused-husband sent notice of talaq to Chairman of Union Council and a certificate of effectiveness of talaq issued by Chairman, held, would not be sufficient to prove that matrimonial ties between accused-husband and wife came to an end.
Citation Name : 1981 PCRLJ 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL BAQI
Side Opponent : NAYARA SIDDIQI
-----S. 488 and Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Dissolution of marriage-Maintenance-Marriage between parties dissolved by order of Court---Wife held not entitled to maintenance after date of passing of such order-Prompt dower having not been paid to wife, held further, could stay away from husband and be liable to be maintained till date of dissolution of marriage and thereafter for the period of Iddat (three months).[Maintenance].
Citation Name : 1980 CLC 1635 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFIZ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE NO. 5, SHEIKHUPURA
S. 7 (3)-Arbitration Council. jurisdiction of-Arbitration Council passing decree for money in lieu of dowry-Such decree, held, without jurisdiction-Pray course for Arbitration Council to leave such matte, to be decided by proper forums---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. [Jurisdiction]
Citation Name : 1980 PCRLJ 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD LATIF
Side Opponent : MST. HANIFAN BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 -- S. 7 (1) & (3)-Talaq-S. 7(1) of Ordinance takes into account all .forms of talaq and no particular form outside its purview-Subsection (3) of S. 7 having precluded ialaq from- being effective for a certain period within such period marital status of parties, held, remains unchanged. -(Muhammadan Law].
Citation Name : 1979 PLD 36 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZARINA BIBI
Side Opponent : MEHBOOB
S. 7-Talaq, notice of-Notice of talaq sent by husband to Secretary, Union Council-Cannot be acted upon by Secretary of Council in absence of its Chairman and Secretary's order that talaq had become effective due to expiry of time provided in notice without lawful authority and of no legal effect.-[ Muhammadan Law-Divorce).
Citation Name : 1979 PLD 241 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AIYSHA YASMIEN ABBASI
Side Opponent : MAQBOOL HUSSAIN QURESHI
S. 8 read with S. 7-Dissolution of marriage-Khula'-Mubaraa' at Notice of Talaq-Dissolution of marriage by way of Khula' or Mubara'at-Irrevocable in so far as husband's authority to revoke concerned-Husband and wife having mutually agreed in writing to dissolve their marriage and sending a copy of agreement to Secretary/ Chairman of Union Council concerned with request to dissolve marriage and to complete formalities-Communication thus sent to Union Council, held, a valid notice under S. 8 read with S. 7-Contention of proceedings under S. 7 being not necessitated in such case, however, repelled.-[Muhammadan Law-Khula'-Divorced.
Citation Name : 1978 PLD 701 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIHA BIBI
Side Opponent : HASSAN DIN
__ Ss. 7 & 8 read with West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 8 & Sched. Jurisdiction Sections 7 & 8 of Ordinance VIII of 1961-Applicable only when parties wish to dissolve marriage otherwise than through intervention of Family Court last do not oust jurisdiction of Family Courts conferred en them by S. 5 of Act XXXV of 1964 read with Schedule, in respect of dissolution of marriage-Decree of Family Court dissolving marriage, held, not without jurisdiction.- [Jurisdiction]
Citation Name : 1978 PLD 328 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHMMAD NAWAZ
Side Opponent : MST. FAIZ ELAHI
So. 7(1), (3) & 8 --Dissolution of marriage through khula' by agreement of both spouses-Does not strictly fall under S.7(1) but under' S. 8--Such khula' not revocable-Application for cancellation or revocation to Chairman and conduct of proceedings and issue of cancellation certificate by him-Held, without competence and without lawful-authority-Doubt on question of interpretation of S 8 read with S. 7(3)-To be resolved in favour of interpretation which is in accord with and advances Islamic Law and philosophy.-[Divorce-Khula'].S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance
Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAKIA FAROOQ
Side Opponent : CHARIMAN, UNION COUNCIL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----S. 7---Legality of Talaq and certificate that Talaq had become effective--Chairman, Arbitration Council could neither decide the question of legality of Talaq claimed to have been pronounced by the husband nor could he issue certificate that divorce had become effective.
Citation Name : 1990 MLD 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : EHSAN-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : SHAHNAZ BEGUM
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7---Talaq---Period of iddat in absence of resumption of marital ties---When notice of Talaq was served on behalf of husband to the Chairman concerned, and there was no resumption of marital ties within the period of ninety days, the period of iddat would be deemed to have coincided with the said ninety days.
Citation Name : 1990 CLC 1683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH BANDA
Side Opponent : KHURSHIDD BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7(3)---Talaq pronounced thrice in one sitting becomes effective immediately and in such eventuality, the question of its revocation does not arise.
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MNHAMMAD DIN
Side Opponent : SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA, DIVISION, SARGODHA
---Ss. 5, 7 & 8--Husband's right of divorce--Restrictions--Column 19 in Nikahnama--Object--When a line was drawn in space against Col. No.19 in Nikahnama provided for mentioning restriction, if any, on right of husband to divorce, that would mean that parties at time of Nikah did not agree to put restriction on right of husband to divorce--Such fact alone, held, would not advance case of husband that wife would not be entitled to recover anything from him inasmuch as Nikah was nothing but an agreement between parties--No bar in law exists for the parties to enter into another agreement restricting right of divorce of husband,
Citation Name : 1989 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KANIZ FATIMA
Side Opponent : WALI MUHAMMAD
Ss.7 & 8??Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2?A, 8, 199 & Sched. I, Part III??Provisions of Ss.7 & 8, Muslim ?Family Laws Ordinance are not repugnant to the basic concepts of Islam and constitute valid subsisting law??High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam in the context of Art.2?A of the Constitution (1973)??Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having been incorporated in the First Sched., Part III of the Constitution, same was exempted from operation of Art. 8(1) & (2) of Constitution-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having become a part of the Constitution, High Court has no jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution to declare any law which is protected under the Constitution to be invalid being repugnant to Injunctions of Islam??High Court, being a creation of the Constitution, is to make adjudication strictly in accordance with the Constitution and thus cannot undertake the job of declaring any par
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAILA GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Side Opponent : Rai GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 7--Talaq--Wife not residing within territorial jurisdiction of Arbitration Council, Chairman of which dealt with notice of Talaq--Certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq upon wife by husband, issued by said Chairman, held, was coram non judice and nullity in eye of law--Husband had categorically admitted that he never divorced his wife--Talaqnama purported to have been executed and signed by husband was a forged and fake document--Father of husband had been continuously exerting pressure on wife and husband to dissolve their marriage-Father of husband falsely involved the couple as also parents of wife in various criminal and civil cases--Genuineness of divorce deed was, therefore, doubtful and its voluntary character was not proved--Divorce deed purported to have been issued by husband was thus declared as a forged and fake document and certificate of divorce held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Citation Name : 1988 PLD 498 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAISTA ARSHI
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE, WARD NO. 48 LAHORE
S. 7--Divorce--Husband executed Talaqnama divorcing wife but before the expiry of 90 days and before the "Talaq" could become effective in terms of S.7(3) he intimated the Chairman that he wanted, rather he had withdrawn the notice of "Talaq"--Talaq, whether had become complete and binding and could not be revoked to make it a farce" according to Hanfi Fiqah before the intimation by husband to the Chairman.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Service of notice of divorce--Issue not framed by Court-Effect--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife--Wife taking plea that she having been divorced as a result of agreement and oath mentioned in divorce deed, such suit was not maintainable--While accepting fact of divorce, Trial Court decreed suit of husband for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that wife had failed to prove service of notice of divorce on husband--No issue on question of fact relating to sending of notice to Union Committee by wife--Wife, held, was prejudiced relating to defence against suit for restitution conjugal rights--Petitioner, on account of wrong issue had been denied due opportunity of defence in suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 2061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MANZOOR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, UNION COUNCIL JALAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUJRANWALA
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Talaq--Petitioner after divorcing his wife by sending written divorce to her and Chairman, Arbitration Council failed to appear before Chairman to substantiate fact whether in fact he had pronounced Talaq upon his wife or not-Chairman, held, was justified in law in consigning proceedings before him to the record.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 1496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 Ss. 7(1) & 8--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491--Talaq in the nature of Mubarat--Habeas corpus petition for--Whether irrevocable-- Detenue admitting her marriage with petitioner and wishing to go with him--Detenue's previous marriage with one 'B' allegedly subsisting as no Talaq from 'B' effected--Offence of Bigamy and Zina allegedly committed--Court on enquiry, finding performance of marriage of detenue with 'B' as Vatta in lieu of which sister of 'B' married to brother of detenue--Later relations between 'B' and detenue becoming strained and both marriages were decided to be mutually dissolved-Divorce-deed executed--'B' admitting execution of divorce-deed--Detenue believing to be divorced under mutual agreement, contracting second marriage with petitioner- -Talaq by mutual agreement, held, was in nature of Mubarat and had become irrevocable from date of-its execution and provision of revocation in S. 7 of Family Laws Ordinance was inapplicable in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA KHATOON
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSUF
---S.2--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Khula'-- Relations between parties becoming strained within a period of four years of marital life to the extent that they could not live happily together--Wife not only was beaten and thrown out from house of husband on one or two occasions but also character of her husband was bad and insisting on her to lead immoral life--Observations of Appellate Court that such fact could be hardly termed as habitual cruelty or would not be taken into consideration for purpose of Khula', held, were not proper--Case remanded to Appellate Court for disposal after considering plea of Khula' and satisfying its conscience that wife, if forced to live with husband would not be observing limits prescribed by God, and after fixing benefits, if any, to be returned by wife to her husband as consideration of Khula'.
Citation Name : 1987 PLD 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : PIR BAKHSH
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD
S. 7 & Sched.--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula--Contention of husband that wife was not entitled to succeed in obtaining decree from Judge, Family Court for dissolution of marriage as she had not been able to prove her allegations against him on the basis of any independent evidence inasmuch as the only witness examined by her was her own brother-Held, such contention was not capable of leading to interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction because there was no legal bar in the evidence of a close relation being accepted in proof of a certain fact--Judge Family Court had the requisite power and such acceptance of evidence could not be considered to be an act without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Side Opponent : SABO
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7--Khula--Wife having developed hatred against husband on account of fact that he compelled her to convert her sect--Held, spouses, could not lead their matrimonial life within limits prescribed by Allah--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula not interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1986 MLD 2569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHER KHATOON
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULXAN
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7(1)--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S,5--Notice of Talaq--Non-giving of--Effect--Where husband did not give notice of Talaq to Chairman and filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights within 90 days of alleged pronouncement of Talaq, such divorce, held, would be deemed to have been revoked by husband.
Citation Name : 1986 CLC 1722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL
--S.21--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss. 7 & 8- Dissolution of marriage--K hula -Return of benefits by wife—Determination of such benefits--Chairman of Union Council cannot go behind decree granted by Family Court--Chairman, after dissolution of marriage by Family Court, has to proceed in accordance with provisions of S.21 of the Act of 1964--Chairman is not expected to adjudicate upon liability of wife to return benefits to husband and in case of failure of reconciliation proceedings cannot treat decree as ineffective on rights of the parties.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 415 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ
Side Opponent : PARVEEN AKHTAR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S.7--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.7--Dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula--Wife seeking divorce, inter alia on ground of hatred towards husband--Five out of seven issues decided against wife--Such failure on her part to prove various issues in suit, held, did not necessarily mean that admitted rift between parties was w bout any cause because without cause there would not have been rift and parties would have been living together.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1985 PLD 319 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZIKRIA KHAN
Side Opponent : AFTAB ALI KHAN
S. 7-Divprce-Object, scope and application of -- S 7-Divorce-Whether divorce, after expiry of ninety days from date of receipt of notice of Talaq by Chairman, Union Council becomes effective-Whether Chairman is vested with authority to suspend its operation and annul divorce-Non-supply of copy of notice of Talaq to wife- -Effect.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALEEMA BIBI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
---S.5--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Divorce--Husband divorcing wife--Chairman Arbitration Council issuing a certificate making divorce effective and wife on basis of such certificate entering into second marriage and having children from second husband--Husband obtaining a decree of subsistence of conjugal rights from family Court and appellate Court--Courts while granting decree for conjugal rights leaning heavily against wife on ground that she had not produced witnesses whose names appeared on Talaqnama--Divorce sent to wife neither written ins her presence nor signed by husband or witnesses in her presence-Husband not denying his signature on Talaqnama in Examination-in-Chie; but doing so in cross-examination--Names of witnesses on Talaqnama not persons of her choice and not known to her-- Producing those persons witnesses in evidence, therefore, was too much and decision of Courts deciding issues against wife proceeded on irrelevant consideration in circumstances--Basic approach of two Courts below incorrect and leading to untenable conclusions--Courts below could have easily resorted to comparing signatures of respondent husband on Talaqnama with his admitted signatures on his plaint in suit for restitution of conjugal rights, written statement in suit for divorce and power-of-attorney, no fetters placed on powers of Court to adopt such a procedure in its persuit to find truth--Court could proceed on premises that ever procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition found against it law--Court in such circumstances cannot and should not sit like a distant spectator to witness a legal battle being fought before it by two adversaries--Court to exercise its own powers to prevent course of justice being deflected from its true path where circumstances so demand--Omission on part of Courts below, held, causing grave miscarriage of justice and reflecting adversely on future of wife as well as her children--Relief of restitution, of conjugal rights which rested in discretion of Court could not justifiably be granted to husband in circumstances--Court as Court of equity in its conscience could not compel husband to share bed and cohabit with her former husband when she had remarried with another person and had children from him--Orders of Courts below set aside and case remanded to District Judge for re-examining matter in appeal and resolving controvers in accordance with law and observations made by High Court.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASIR SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN
---- S. 7-Talaq-Notice-Once execution of divorce deed proved talaq, held, became effective after expiry of ninety days even if notice not served upon Chairman concerned.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 3330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAZIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ROSHAN
----S. 7-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Muhammadan Law-Khula-Wife filing suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and that husband being of a bad character had established illicit relations with his own brother's wife-Trial Court rejecting application of wife on grounds that no convincing evidence to prove allegation$ was forthcoming-Trial Court failing to take account of all circumstances and effect of allegations made, which normally led to a state of affairs where it would be difficult for spouses to live together within limits prescribed by Allah-Application of principle of Khula' on these grounds, held, required to be taken into account and could not be brushed aside simply for failure of wife to produce convincing evidence about cruelty etc.-- Order of Appellate Court for not taking into account the crucial controversy, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.--Provisional Constitution. Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.-[Khula].
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHUHAR
Side Opponent : GHULAM FATIMA
S. 7-Watta marriage-Divorce from both sides-Pronouncement of talaq by husband without notice to Chairman, Union Council us required by S. 7-Husband never revoked talaq expressly or otherwise-Talaq determined and separation by mutual consent-Subsequent conduct of husband sufficiently rebutting presumption that omission to give notice to Chairman, Union Council as required under S. 7, revokes talaq impleadly-Held, main object of S. 7 to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by talaq pronounced by husband unilaterally not defeated by non-giving of notice under S. 7 or 7(1) and did not render talaq ineffective in circumstances-Second marriage by divorcee after expiry of period of iddat was valid and child out of such wedlock legitimate.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM FATIMA
Side Opponent : SAT BHARAI
---S. 7-Divorce deed-No formality for
_______________________________________
High Court observed
that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the extent that if
Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay maintenance were poor
and those who should have to receive maintenance also fell under the clause of
eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to
Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued
----S. 5 & Sched. ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintenance allowance for minors, recovery of---Petitioner was grandfather of minors and he failed to provide maintenance allowance as fixed by Family Court---Plea raised by petitioner was that he was a pensioner having meagre sources of income and was unable to pay maintenance to minors as fixed by Family Court---Validity---By putting a person with 76 years of age behind the bars, the minors would not be adequately compensated with regard to their maintenance, when grandfather was a pensioner and not in a position to maintain the minors---Such was not enough to attend miseries of the minors---High Court observed that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the extent that if Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay maintenance were poor and those who should have to receive maintenance also fell under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued---Family Courts were also expected not to deal with delicate matters touching the rights of people, particularly destitute ladies and needy minors and instead of dealing with their such affairs in mechanical manner, there was a need to adopt new line of action to start with creation of a society, which was dreamed of as a social welfare State---By putting person behind the bars for non-providing maintenance to deserving people, no service was being offered to such needy people but their miseries were being added---High Court directed the authorities to register the minors as regular beneficiaries from District Bail-ul-Maal---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
P L D 2012 Lahore 445
Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J
ABDUL MAJEED---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others---Respondents
----S. 5 & Sched. ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintenance allowance for minors, recovery of---Petitioner was grandfather of minors and he failed to provide maintenance allowance as fixed by Family Court---Plea raised by petitioner was that he was a pensioner having meagre sources of income and was unable to pay maintenance to minors as fixed by Family Court---Validity---By putting a person with 76 years of age behind the bars, the minors would not be adequately compensated with regard to their maintenance, when grandfather was a pensioner and not in a position to maintain the minors---Such was not enough to attend miseries of the minors---High Court observed that system of Zakat could be linked up with Family Court to the extent that if Family Court was of the view that persons liable to pay maintenance were poor and those who should have to receive maintenance also fell under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to Zakat and Ushr Council be also issued---Family Courts were also expected not to deal with delicate matters touching the rights of people, particularly destitute ladies and needy minors and instead of dealing with their such affairs in mechanical manner, there was a need to adopt new line of action to start with creation of a society, which was dreamed of as a social welfare State---By putting person behind the bars for non-providing maintenance to deserving people, no service was being offered to such needy people but their miseries were being added---High Court directed the authorities to register the minors as regular beneficiaries from District Bail-ul-Maal---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
P L D 2012 Lahore 445
Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J
ABDUL MAJEED---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 4 others---Respondents
________________________________________
Family Courts Act,
1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money
by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue
Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 90---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Attachment and sale of judgment-debtor's immoveable property---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provided various modes of recovery of arrears of land revenue and one of the modes provided was selling the immovable property of the defaulter.
2015 SCMR 128 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : AMJAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : Mst. NIDA SOHAIL
Ss. 5, Sched. & 13(3)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 90---Family Court---Decree for maintenance, execution of---Attachment and sale of judgment-debtor's immoveable property---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, empowered the Family Court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provided various modes of recovery of arrears of land revenue and one of the modes provided was selling the immovable property of the defaulter.
2015 SCMR 128 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : AMJAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : Mst. NIDA SOHAIL
________________________________________
Constitutional
petition was accepted and Chairman Union Council was directed to issue
certificate of effectiveness of divorce forthwith.
S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---divorce with mutual consent of parties and on the basis of Muba'arat---Withdrawl of divorce by the husband---Non-issuance of certificate of effectiveness of divorce by the Chairman Union Council---Scope---Contention of Chairman Union Council was that husband had withdrawn divorce ---Validity---divorce deed was an agreement based upon the consent of the parties and same was signed in presence of witnesses---Husband had also informed Chairman Union Council with regard to divorce ---Husband could not retract or withdraw divorce which was with mutual consent and on the basis of Muba'arat nor Chairman Union Council had authority to adjudicate upon the validity of the same---Chairman Union Council was bound to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce and he had no power to entertain notice of withdrawal of divorce and to start proceedings on the basis thereof---Husband had no authority to revoke divorce in case of Talaq-i-Muba'arat and Chairman Union Council had no authority except to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce ---Constitutional petition was accepted and Chairman Union Council was directed to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce forthwith.
2014 PLD 632 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SANA SHEHZAD
Side Opponent : SECRETARY UNION COUNCIL NO.81
S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---divorce with mutual consent of parties and on the basis of Muba'arat---Withdrawl of divorce by the husband---Non-issuance of certificate of effectiveness of divorce by the Chairman Union Council---Scope---Contention of Chairman Union Council was that husband had withdrawn divorce ---Validity---divorce deed was an agreement based upon the consent of the parties and same was signed in presence of witnesses---Husband had also informed Chairman Union Council with regard to divorce ---Husband could not retract or withdraw divorce which was with mutual consent and on the basis of Muba'arat nor Chairman Union Council had authority to adjudicate upon the validity of the same---Chairman Union Council was bound to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce and he had no power to entertain notice of withdrawal of divorce and to start proceedings on the basis thereof---Husband had no authority to revoke divorce in case of Talaq-i-Muba'arat and Chairman Union Council had no authority except to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce ---Constitutional petition was accepted and Chairman Union Council was directed to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce forthwith.
2014 PLD 632 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SANA SHEHZAD
Side Opponent : SECRETARY UNION COUNCIL NO.81
________________________________________
Copied
_*Latest* Case Law on Family Cases by Ch Ahmad Gondal AHC, Pakpattan_
_*2019 YLR 86*_
_سیکشن 18 فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ: پردہ نشین عورت ایجنٹ کے زریعے اپنی شہادت فیملی کیس میں ریکارڈ کروا سکتی ہے۔
_*Latest* Case Law on Family Cases by Ch Ahmad Gondal AHC, Pakpattan_
_*2019 YLR 86*_
_سیکشن 18 فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ: پردہ نشین عورت ایجنٹ کے زریعے اپنی شہادت فیملی کیس میں ریکارڈ کروا سکتی ہے۔
______________________________________
Copied from _Ch Ahmad Gondal AHC, Gold Medalist, from Pakpattan: 03008793843_
_*فیملی کورٹ کے چند منفرد فیصلے جو روٹین سے ہٹ کر ہیں اور امید ہے آپ کی نظر سے نہیں گزرے ہوں گے۔*_
_فیملی کورٹ کی یہ ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ یکطرفہ ڈگری پاس ہونے کے بعد مدعا علیہ کے پتہ پر ڈگری کی مصدقہ کاپی بھیجے۔_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر والد کے پاس نابالغ کی پرورش کے لیے ذرائع نہیں ہیں تو والدہ کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ نابالغ کی پرورش کرے۔ اس کے علاوہ اس کیس لاء میں تفصیل سےنابالغان کے حوالےسے والدین کی ذمہ داریوں کا تعین کیا گیا ہے۔_
_*PLD 2013 SC 557*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_محترم وکلاء! آپ سے گزارش ہے کہ میرے ساتھ قانونی نکات پر بحث و مباحثہ کے لیے میرا موبائل نمبر 03008793843 اپنے موبائل میں Save کرلیں۔ شکریہ: *چوہدری احمد گوندل ایڈووکیٹ ہائی کورٹ*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی عدالت یکطرفہ ڈکری پاس کرنے سے پہلے مدعا علیہ کو نوٹس حاضری بھیج سکتی ہے۔_
_*2017 PLJ Pesh 01*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کیس کے اجراء میں ضامن کی یہ قانونی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ کسی بھی ڈیفالٹ کی صورت میں جہیز ادا کرے۔_
_*2016 PLD Pesh 109*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خلع کے علاوہ باقی حقائق کے خلاف درخواست منسوخی ڈگری کی مدت اس وقت شروع ہوگی جب مدعا علیہ/ججمنٹ ڈیٹر کو اس ڈکری کا علم ہوگا۔_
_*2017 CLC N 69*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی کو حق مہر ادا نہ کرنا بھی ظلم/Cruelty ہے۔ جوکہ خلع کے لیے بہترین گراؤنڈ ہے۔_
_*2018 CLC 93*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کیس میں Interim Order کے خلاف رِٹ پٹیشن نہیں ہوسکتی۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹ کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ وہ فیملی کیس کا 6 ماہ کے اندر اندر فیصلہ کرے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1231*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_باپ اپنے بچے کو خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔ اس کا یہ بہانہ نہیں سنا جائے گا کہ اس کے پاس ذرائع آمدن نہیں ہیں۔_
_*2018 CLC N 47*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_بیوی خاوند کی Cruelty ثابت نہ کرسکی۔ عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ بیوی شادی کے تحائف واپس کرے اور شوہر حق مہر ادا کرے۔_
_*2018 PLD Pesh 34*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں خاوند کے لیے Past Maintenance کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_پردہ نشیں عورت اپنے والد کے ذریعے اپنی شہادت ریکارڈ کروا سکتی ہے اگر اس کے والد کو کیس حالات کا اچھی طرح سے پتہ ہوتو۔_
_*2002 CLC 1336*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی لاء ایک سپیشل لاء ہے۔ اس میں اجراء کی درخواست کے لیے کوئی میعاد مقرر نہ ہے۔_
_*2018 YLR 1501*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہائی کورٹ فُل بینچ نے فیملی قوانین کی تشریح کرتے وقت یہ قرار دیا کہ فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ 1964 اور مسلم فیملی لاز آرڈینیس 1961 کی متعلقہ دفعات غیرقانونی ہیں کہ خلع کی صورت میں بیوی کو حق مہر کی رقم بھی واپس کرنی پڑے گی جبکہ اسلامی اصولوں کے تحت اسے صرف شادی کے تحائف واپس کرنے چاہئیں۔_
_*PLD 2009 Pesh 92*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں بیوی/عورت رہتی ہوگی اسی جگہ فیملی کیس دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ علاقائی اختیار سماعت نہیں دیکھا جائے گا۔_
_*PLD 2006 Pesh 189*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_طلاق یافتہ بچی اگر ماں کے پاس ہوتو باپ اس کا خرچہ نان و نفقہ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2012 Lah 43*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ماں بچے کا خرچہ باپ کو معاف بھی کردے تو باپ دینے کا پابند ہے۔_
_*2014 MLD 351 Pesh*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_نکاح نامہ میں لکھی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں آتی ہے اور فیملی کورٹ اس حوالہ سے ڈکری پاس کرسکتی ہے۔_
_*PLD 2016 SC 613*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2009 Lah 227*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہیز کی رقم مدعیہ کے والد کے بنک اکاؤنٹ میں جمع کروائی گئی۔ اب Controversy باپ اور بیٹی کے درمیان ہے۔ خاوند کو اس بات کا ذمہ دار نہیں ٹھہرایا جاسکتا۔ یہ سول کورٹ کا معاملہ ہے فیملی کورٹ کا نہیں۔_
_*2013 YLR 1903*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_شادی کی تاریخ کے بعد منتقل کی گئی پراپرٹی حق مہر یا گفٹ کے ضمرہ میں نہیں آتی۔_
_*PLD 2011 Kar 196*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جہاں طلائی زیورات یا انکی قیمت واپس کرنے کی ڈکری پاس ہوجائے تو اس صورت میں قیمت Date of Payment کے حساب سے دیکھی جائے گی۔_
_*2013 SCMR 1049*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_جس کیس میں مدعیہ صرف طلائی زیورات کی بابت استدعا کرے اور ان کی مالیت کرنسی میں نہ بتائے تو اس صورت میں مدعاعلیہ کے پاس آپشن ہوگی کہ وہ یاتو طلائی زیورات بمطابق وزن واپس کرے یا پھر اتنی رقم ادا کرے جس سے اس وزن کے طلائی زیورات اوپن مارکیٹ سے خریدے جاسکیں۔_
_*2014 CLC 895*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_ہر باپ کا حق ہے کہ وہ اپنے بچے سے ملاقات غیر مشروط طریقے سے کرے۔ ملاقات کے لیے Surety Bonds مشروط کرنا غیرآئینی ہے اور اسے 199 کے تحت چیلنج کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2014 CLC 1168*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_اگر Pendency کے دوران دعویٰ Partly واپس لیا جائے تو نیا سوٹ فائل کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ اس پر Res Judicata کا اصول لاگو نہیں ہوگا۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_معزز ہائیکورٹ نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ 99 فیصد سامان جہیز کے کیسز میں جھوٹ بولتی ہے کہ لِسٹ شادی کے وقت تیار کی گئی تھی۔ اور 1 فیصد کیسز میں وہ ضِد کرتی ہے کہ وہ جھوٹ نہیں بول رہی۔_
_*2013 MLD 939 Lah*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_خرچہ نان و نفقہ ایک فائدہ نہیں بلکہ حق ہے۔ اگر خلع کے کیس میں خرچہ نان و نفقہ کو بطور شرط معاف کیا گیا تو یہ غیرقانونی ہے اور اسکی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں۔_
_*2012 MLD 1943*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_چونکہ CPC فیملی لاء پر اپلائی نہیں ہوتی مگر پھر بھی جو طریقہ کار CPC میں دیا گیا ہے انصاف کے بہترین حصول کے لیے وہ فیملی لاء میں اختیار کیا جاسکتا ہے۔_
_*2012 MLD 1795*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_فیملی کورٹس ترمیمی ایکٹ 2015 کے تحت خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 سے 5 فیصد کیا گیا۔ لیکن اس فیصلہ میں معزز سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے دوبارہ خرچہ نان و نفقہ 10 فیصد بحال کردیا۔_
_*2016 SCMR 2069*_
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
_محترم وکلاء! آپ سے گزارش ہے کہ میرے ساتھ قانونی نکات پر بحث و مباحثہ کے لیے میرا موبائل نمبر 03008793843 اپنے موبائل میں Save کرلیں۔ شکریہ: *چوہدری احمد گوندل ایڈووکیٹ ہائی کورٹ*_
http://fb.me/MrAhmadGondal/
________________________________________
2018 CLC 887
Under subsections (1a) and (1b) of S.9 of Family Courts Act, 1964, either party could submit his/her claim in written statement.Though in subsection (1b), the relief of only dissolution of marriage including Khula was mentioned as a claim to be set up by the wife, however, in said subsection the word "including Khula" was used which had enlarged its scope.Merely specifying the words dissolution of marriage including Khula would not mean that wife could claim only such reliefs in her written statement but the word "including" used in S.9(1b) of Family Courts Act, 1964 would enlarge its scope and the wife was not supposed to file separate Suit for maintenance allowance of minor etc, instead all such claims could be joined in the written statement.Words used in the concluding para of subsection (1b) was also very relevant which supported the case of the wife, i.e "shall be deemed as a plaint and no separate Suit shall lie for it" and it further strengthened the case of the wife, and whatever she claimed in her written statement would be considered as if she had filed a separate Suit to such effect.
Under subsections (1a) and (1b) of S.9 of Family Courts Act, 1964, either party could submit his/her claim in written statement.Though in subsection (1b), the relief of only dissolution of marriage including Khula was mentioned as a claim to be set up by the wife, however, in said subsection the word "including Khula" was used which had enlarged its scope.Merely specifying the words dissolution of marriage including Khula would not mean that wife could claim only such reliefs in her written statement but the word "including" used in S.9(1b) of Family Courts Act, 1964 would enlarge its scope and the wife was not supposed to file separate Suit for maintenance allowance of minor etc, instead all such claims could be joined in the written statement.Words used in the concluding para of subsection (1b) was also very relevant which supported the case of the wife, i.e "shall be deemed as a plaint and no separate Suit shall lie for it" and it further strengthened the case of the wife, and whatever she claimed in her written statement would be considered as if she had filed a separate Suit to such effect.
________________________________________
2016 YLR 1316
Proviso to the sub section 2 of S.7 of the Family Court Act,1964 bestowed authority upon the Family Court to permit a party to call any witness at any later stage where the court considered such evidence expedient in the interest of justice even his name had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses. No consequences were provided for non -compliance of S.7 ,which brought its provision out of the mandatory nature .
Proviso to the sub section 2 of S.7 of the Family Court Act,1964 bestowed authority upon the Family Court to permit a party to call any witness at any later stage where the court considered such evidence expedient in the interest of justice even his name had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses. No consequences were provided for non -compliance of S.7 ,which brought its provision out of the mandatory nature .
_______________________________________
Family Court under
first proviso to S.7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was possessed
with the powers to allow any document to be produced, which was expedient and
just for the fair administration of justice
S. 5, Sched. & S.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dowry articles, etc.---Production of documents as additional evidence---Scope---Plaintiffs moved an application for submission of documents as additional evidence, in order to prove the monthly income and financial status of the defendant, during the trial of the suit---Said application was dismissed vide impugned order on the ground that documents intended to be produced, were neither appended with the plaint nor were relied upon by the plaintiffs in the list of reliance---Family Court under first proviso to S.7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was possessed with the powers to allow any document to be produced, which was expedient and just for the fair administration of justice---Additional evidence which was necessary for just and fair decision of the case, could be allowed at any stage of the case---Documents intended to be produced by the plaintiffs were expedient and important for the just decision of the case---Judge Family Court had not exercised his jurisdiction properly while passing the impugned order and dismissed the application by the plaintiffs on the ground that they did not append said documents with the plaint at the time of filing the suit---Impugned judgment of the Judge Family Court, being illegal and void was set aside and the plaintiffs were permitted to produce additional evidence, in circumstances.
2012 MLD 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. TALAT SHAHEEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD IBRAR
S. 5, Sched. & S.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dowry articles, etc.---Production of documents as additional evidence---Scope---Plaintiffs moved an application for submission of documents as additional evidence, in order to prove the monthly income and financial status of the defendant, during the trial of the suit---Said application was dismissed vide impugned order on the ground that documents intended to be produced, were neither appended with the plaint nor were relied upon by the plaintiffs in the list of reliance---Family Court under first proviso to S.7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was possessed with the powers to allow any document to be produced, which was expedient and just for the fair administration of justice---Additional evidence which was necessary for just and fair decision of the case, could be allowed at any stage of the case---Documents intended to be produced by the plaintiffs were expedient and important for the just decision of the case---Judge Family Court had not exercised his jurisdiction properly while passing the impugned order and dismissed the application by the plaintiffs on the ground that they did not append said documents with the plaint at the time of filing the suit---Impugned judgment of the Judge Family Court, being illegal and void was set aside and the plaintiffs were permitted to produce additional evidence, in circumstances.
2012 MLD 216 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. TALAT SHAHEEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD IBRAR
________________________________________
Additional evidence
can be produce at any stage in family suit.
2012 MLD 216 lah.
2002 CLC 1801 .
2006 CLC 554
2015CLC 990 isl.
2016 CLC 1604.
2015 SCMR 58 .
2016 MLD 840 Lah
2012 MLD 216 lah.
2002 CLC 1801 .
2006 CLC 554
2015CLC 990 isl.
2016 CLC 1604.
2015 SCMR 58 .
2016 MLD 840 Lah
________________________________________
فيملي عدالت ڪنهن ب اصول جي پابند ناهي,عدالت انصاف جي
لاء ڪنهن ب وقت ڪنهن ب اصول جي خلاف فيصلو ڏئي سگهي ٿي.
-
2017 SCMR 321
-
2017 SCMR 321
________________________________________
The Family Court is
not
permitted to allow additional evidence or names of witnesses
in schedule since schedule cannot be amended.
2018 YLR 1231
2003 CLC 1787
2005 CLC 667
2013 CLC 32
permitted to allow additional evidence or names of witnesses
in schedule since schedule cannot be amended.
2018 YLR 1231
2003 CLC 1787
2005 CLC 667
2013 CLC 32
_______________________________________
2016 SCMR 2170 (b)
Immovable property subject to execution proceeding was mentioned in Nikah Nama of Judgment debtor as dower. Decree could not be executed against such immovable property.
Immovable property subject to execution proceeding was mentioned in Nikah Nama of Judgment debtor as dower. Decree could not be executed against such immovable property.
________________________________________
2014 PLD
43 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
Side Appellant : SALEEM AHMAD
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Attorney General of Pakistan
Marriage, termination of---"Khula " without recourse to court---Scope---Word "Khula ' literally meant "to put off"---Khula denoted laying down by the husband of rights and authority over his wife, at her instance, on acceptance of consideration---Khula signified a conditional situation on the part of wife, entered into for the purpose of dissolving the marital tie at her instance, in lieu of a compensation paid or agreed to be paid by her to the husband out of her property---In case of mutual agreement on such an arrangement, the wife did not need to go to court and ask for dissolution of her marriage as in such a situation the husband would release her from the marital bond and the wife would be free to marry any other person after the iddat period, as would be required in her case, if she was or was not pregn ant.
Side Appellant : SALEEM AHMAD
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Attorney General of Pakistan
Marriage, termination of---"Khula " without recourse to court---Scope---Word "Khula ' literally meant "to put off"---Khula denoted laying down by the husband of rights and authority over his wife, at her instance, on acceptance of consideration---Khula signified a conditional situation on the part of wife, entered into for the purpose of dissolving the marital tie at her instance, in lieu of a compensation paid or agreed to be paid by her to the husband out of her property---In case of mutual agreement on such an arrangement, the wife did not need to go to court and ask for dissolution of her marriage as in such a situation the husband would release her from the marital bond and the wife would be free to marry any other person after the iddat period, as would be required in her case, if she was or was not pregn ant.
________________________________________
زال پنهنجي
مُڙس جي پيء تي ب حق مهر وٺڻ لاء ڪيس ڪري سگهي ٿي.
-
2017 CLC 1517
2008 CLJ 589
________________________________________
Khula---Grounds---Aversion
against husband---Islam did not allow subsitence of marriage if it meant
forcing the wife into a hateful union---Wife could not be forced to live with
her husband without her consent and liking---Wife was not required to present
logical objective and sufficient reasons regarding her claim of khula, rather
it was enough for her to show that she had developed a fixed aversion against
her husband.
PLD 2019 Lahore 160
_______________________________________
1999 YLR 875
(c) Muhammadan Law---
---- Khula'---No use
forcing a woman to live in a hateful union of a person, when she is not ready
to live even for a single day at any cost---Woman in such circumstances is
entitled to dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula
_______________________________________
Requirement of two
witnesses for nikah.
2004 YLR
239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mirza ALLAH DITTA alias
MIRZA JAVED AKHTAR
Side
Opponent : Mst. AMNA BIBI
----marriage
---Proof---Presence of two witness es mandatory for proof of valid nikah
---Where both man and woman admit factum of nikah and solemnizing marriage with
each other, then requirement of producing two witness es not
mandatory--Presumption of truth would attach to nikah , which is acknowledged
by both the spouses.
_______________________________________
Plaintiff can file
maintenance suit, under the provisions of S.20, C.P.C. both at her permanent as
well as temporary residence in respect of cause of action arising at her
temporary residence.
----S. 5---Civil
Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 20---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Family Court, territorial jurisdiction
of---Suit for maintenance allowance for minors---Two different places of
dwelling---Plaintiff after divorce was permanently residing in house of her
parents at place "I" and her daughters being in her custody were
living temporarily at place "K" in connection with their
education---Suit for maintenance was filed at place "I" and the same
was decreed in favour of the plaintiff---Appeal filed against the decree before
Lower Appellate Court was dismissed---Validity---Plaintiff could file suit,
under the provisions of S.20, C.P.C. both at her permanent as well as temporary
residence in respect of cause of action arising at her temporary
residence---Temporary residence of the minors would be deemed to be the
permanent residence of their mother--¬Cause of action having arisen in favour
of the plaintiff as guardian of minor at place "I" where she was
residing permanently, the temporary residence of her daughters (minors) at
place "K" would not affect the jurisdiction of Family Court at place
"I" to entertain the suit of maintenance on their behalf---Plaintiff
could invoke jurisdiction either at place "I" or at place
"K" and both Courts having concurrent jurisdiction were competent to
entertain the suit---Where the plaintiff after dissolution of marriage was
residing at place "I" and the minors were in her custody, cause of
action arose in their favour at place "I" and their ordinary place of
residence under the law would be at place "I"---Suit filed at place
"I" did not suffer from defect of territorial jurisdiction of Family
Court---Defendant failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence
rendering the judgment and decree illegal or to be interfered with by High
Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
P L D 2001 Lahore 188
Before Muhammad Nawaz
Abbasi, J
Syed ZIA UL HASSAN
GILANI---Petitioner
versus
Mian KHADIM HUSSAIN
and 7 others---Respondents
________________________________________
Wife is not competent
to file complaint against her husband for polygamy (ZAHID HUSSAIN CHANNA )
----S.6---West
Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 21---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Polygamy---Quashing of proceedings,
application for---Respondent/ complainant wife in her complaint had alleged
that applicant/husband had contracted second marriage without her prior
permission and consent---Wife had also alleged that husband had not even filed
any application to the Nazim Union Council for obtaining permission of
Arbitration Council---Complaint was returned by the Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate, with the direction to file same before the Union Council concerned---Appellate
Court however, set aside order of the Trial Court and remanded the' complaint
with the directions to record the statement of wife---Husband who filed
application for quashing of the proceedings had contended that provisions of
S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 did not contemplate an action on
behalf of private person, which could only be initiated on behalf of the Union
Council---Validity---As to what had been provided under the law, had to be
followed in the same manner and an aggrieved party could avail normal. remedies
by approaching the Trial Court---Notwithstanding, it was not the intention of
lawmakers that an aggrieved party under S.6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 should approach the court of law for redress, except that Union
Council would have the jurisdiction over the subject in the event of Polygamy
as said section did not contemplate delegation of authority to the private
person for initiating an action on behalf of the Union Council---In the present
case, proceedings initiated by the Trial Court in the complaint of wife, were
found to be devoid of lawful authority, it would be an exercise in futile to
allow the private complaint to linger on which would tantamount to be patent
illegality and flagrant abuse of process of law---Bar existed in entertaining a
private complaint directly filed by the wife against the husband, which would
amount to violation of the principles of justice, and required interference for
exercise of power of quashing the proceedings--Impugned order was set aside and
proceedings pending before the Trial Court were directed to be quashed.
Subadar Malik Sher
Muhammad v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ Qeutta 1510; Zakir Hussain Siddiqui v. Mst.
Nazim Bano and others 1989 CLC Kar. 1062; Faheemuddin v. Sabeeha Begum PLD 1991
SC 1074 and Kausar Perveen v. The State 2004 YLR 2242 ref.
2010 M L D 470
[Karachi]
Before Mrs. Qaiser
Iqbal, J
ATIQ-UR-REHMAN---Applicant
.Versus
Mst. SADIA and
another---Respondents.
________________________________________
Husband died before
completion of 90 days of divorce
Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance (VIII of 1961)---
-S.
7---Divorce---Husband died before completion of 90 days of
divorce---Effect---Held, during the period of 90 days, if husband was alive, he
would have had the option to revoke the divorce pronounced by him---Procedure
provided under law required reconciliation proceedings to be initiated and only
on expiry of 90 days, divorce was to become effective---On the date husband
died, divorce having not become effective in terms of S.7, Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961, wife committed to be his widow and was entitled to inherit his
property.
2017 CLC 516
_______________________________________
2019 CLC 1008
(e) Family Courts Act
(XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5 &
Sched.---Suit for recovery of gold ornaments as dower---Presumption---General
presumption was that gold ornaments were always possessed by females and in
exceptional cases were kept by males
________________________________________
2004 YLR 239
Where both man and
woman admit factum of nikah and solemnizing marriage with each other, then
requirement of producing two witness es not mandatory
_______________________________________
--Family Court had got
the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute wherein
movable or immovable property had been claimed as Dower
2016 MLD 925
_______________________________________
Additional witnesses
were allowed even after conclusion of
both parties evidence in family suit.
S.7(2)---Constitution
of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of
maintenance allowance---Production of witnesses----Principles---Petitioner's
application for production of witnesses after the conclusion of evidence of
both parties was dismissed by Family Court on the ground that list of such
witnesses was not furnished by the petitioner with the petitioner's written
statement-Validity-Proviso to S.7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act,
1964 contemplated that the parties may, with the permission-of the court, call
any witness at any later stage, if the court considered such evidence expedient
in the interest of justice---Family Court in the impugned order, did not appear
to have given any such observation as to whether the evidence of such witnesses
was expedient to the interest of justice or not---Mere fact that the list of
witnesses was not furnished along with written statement, did not place any bar
for the production of any witness at any belated stage---Family Court, in
exercise of its powers could make such orders as may be necessary for the ends
of justice---Court was not to act upon the principle that every procedure was
to be taken to be prohibited unless it was expressly provided for. but on the
converse principle that every procedure was to be understood as permissible
till it was shown to be prohibited by law---As a matter of general principle,
prohibition could not be presumed---Order of Family Court was set aside with
the direction that the petitioner's application for production of witnesses be
deemed to be accepted---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2012 MLD
1984 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ASHRAF ALI
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, OKARA
__________________________________
Ss. 13(4) & 5, Sched.—Decree
for maintenance of child passed by Family Court—Jurisdiction of Family Court
(Executing Court) to execute such decree—Scope—Son (who was a minor at the
time) filed a suit for maintenance against his father—Family Court passed a
decree in favour of the son, which decree attained finality up to the Supreme
Court—During pendency of execution proceedings of the said decree son crossed
the age of 18 years and attained age of majority—Father moved an application
before the Executing Court (Family Court) contending that his son had reached
age of majority, therefore, he was under no obligation to pay further
maintenance, and the execution petition should accordingly be
dismissed—Executing Court (Family Court) dismissed application of father
finding that it was in the interest of justice, equity and fair play that
father should maintain his son up to the time that he completed his education
and became a working hand—Constitutional petition filed by father against order
of Executing Court was also dismissed—Legality—No specific judgment and decree
had been passed in favour of the son, directing the father to provide
maintenance to the (adult) son, even after he had attained the age of majority
or had ceased to be a minor—Executing court had no jurisdiction to go beyond
the decree and thus could not require and direct the father to continue paying
the maintenance to his adult son, only for the reason that he was still
studying—Decree passed by Family Court, which had attained finality, contained
no specific command to the effect that it should remain in force even beyond
the majority of son , thus it ceased to have effect automatically the day the
son attained 18 years of age—Executing court was divested of its jurisdiction
to enforce the decree further and could not extend its life, when it had
lapsed—Execution proceedings initiated by the (adult) son against his father
for enforcement of decree of Family Court came to an end from the date the son
attained age of majority i.e. 18 years—Appeal was allowed accordingly and
judgments of High Court and Executing Court were set aside.
2013 PLD 557
SUPREME-COURT
HUMAYUN HASSAN VS
ARSLAN HUMAYUN
No comments:
Post a Comment