2012 PLP 1593 (MLD)
Mst. NASEEM JAFRI — Petitioner Versus Syed HASHIM RAZA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1593 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NASEEM JAFRI — Petitioner Versus Syed HASHIM RAZA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1593 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1593 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1593 (MLD) (Mst. NASEEM JAFRI — Petitioner Versus Syed HASHIM RAZA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5, Sched. & S.14
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Suit for restitution of conjugal rights
Suit was dismissed by Family Court, wife filed appeal, which despite being time-barred had been entertained by the Appellate Court
Husband though served but failed to appear before High Court to argue the case and defend his interest
Constitutional petition was allowed and order passed by Appellate Court was set aside, with the result that appeal filed by the husband was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN HAMID, J.
On the last date of hearing (20-12-2011), it was observed that though respondent No.1 was served inasmuch as he refused to accept the service of the bailiff and that court notice was also pasted on the available address of respondent No.1, by way of abdundant caution again notice was ordered to him together with pasting thereof on the available address of the respondent No.1. Bailiff report shows that notice was pasted on the available address of the respondent No.1. Again the respondent No.1 refused service of court notice. Under the circumstances and what has been mentioned above service on respondent No.1 is held good. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that despite the fact that the appeal before the District Judge, Karachi Central was time barred per Rule 22(1) of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 same was entertained and Impugned Order dated 27-4-2011 was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by respondent No.1 which was dismissed by III-Family Judge, Karachi Central when it came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 never married the petitioner and that he also failed to produce any Nikahnama to authenticate such a claim, however, the IV-ADJ, Karachi Central without appreciating the above fact entertained the appeal though it was time barred against which present petition has been filed. I have looked into the Impugned Order and find that the learned IV-ADJ, Karachi Central has concluded limitation period by erroneously assuming that the decree was prepared on 26-2-2011 and not on 11-11-2010 as against the fact that the certified copy of judgment and decree show that such were prepared on 11-11-2010. The calculation made by learned IV-ADJ, Karachi, Central looking at certified copy of the judgment and decree on the face of it was incorrect and held his decision on such miscalculation and entertaining a time barred appeal is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it is an error both on facts and law and needs to be curtailed. In the circumstances and fact that despite service respondent No.1 has failed to appear and argue the case and defend his interest, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the IV-ADJ, Karachi Central is hereby set aside with the result that the Family Appeal No.125 of 2010 preferred by respondent No.1 before IV-AJD, Karachi, Central is hereby dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly. HBT/N-10/K Petition allowed.