P L D 2000 Quetta 46 (PLP)
FIDA HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAJMA and another‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Quetta 46 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri and Fazal‑ur‑Rehman. JJ |
| Parties | FIDA HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAJMA and another‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Quetta 46 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Quetta 46 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri and Fazal‑ur‑Rehman. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Quetta 46 (PLP) (FIDA HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAJMA and another‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Riaz Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Salahuddin Mengal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Suit for maintenance for period of 'Iddat' and suit for restitution of conjugal rights‑‑‑Former suit was filed by respondent while the latter was filed by the petitioner‑‑‑Judgments of both the Courts below were at variance‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent and decreed that of the petitioner, whereas the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision arrived at by the Trial Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑View expressed by the Appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred in the event of conflict of judgment, unless the same was contrary .to the evidence on record or was in violation of the settled principles of administration of justice‑‑‑Findings of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court in the case were not perverse, arbitrary or capricious‑‑‑View taken by Lower Appellate Court was supported by evidence while the Trial Court had neither discussed the evidence nor the provisions of O. XX, R.5, C.P.C. had been complied with‑‑‑Where the conclusion arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court was not contrary to law the same was not interfered with by the High Court in exercise: of discretionary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution . (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 2A‑‑‑Entorcement of Shariah Act (3t of 1991), S.4‑‑‑Injunctions of Islam‑‑‑General and common law of land‑‑‑Comparison‑‑‑Islamic Injunctions are not in any way subservient to the general and common law of the land‑‑ Article 2A of the Constitution read with Objectives 'Resolution and S.4 of Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991, have always kept the Islamic Laws at a higher level than other general laws of the country. (c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Oral Talaq‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In spite of non‑compliance of mandatory requirement of S.7, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 even the oral Talaq is effective and binding on the parties. 1992 SCMR 1273; Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others PLD 1988 Kar. 169 and PLD 1988 FSC 42 ref. (d) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Dastoor‑ul‑Amal Dewani, Riasat Kalat, S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Contention by petitioner was that against the judgment and decree passed by Qazi, appeal was only competent before "Majlis‑e‑Shoora" and not before the District Judge‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑District Judge under S.14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was competent to hear an appeal against the judgment and decree of a Qazi appointed under S.4 of Dastoor‑ul‑Amal Dewani, Riasat Kalat.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Art. 2A‑‑‑Entorcement of Shariah Act (3t of 1991), S.4‑‑‑Injunctions of Islam‑‑‑General and common law of land‑‑‑Comparison‑‑‑Islamic Injunctions are not in any way subservient to the general and common law of the land‑‑ Article 2A of the Constitution read with Objectives 'Resolution and S.4 of Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991, have always kept the Islamic Laws at a higher level than other general laws of the country. (c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Oral Talaq‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In spite of non‑compliance of mandatory requirement of S.7, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 even the oral Talaq is effective and binding on the parties. 1992 SCMR 1273; Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others PLD 1988 Kar. 169 and PLD 1988 FSC 42 ref. (d) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Dastoor‑ul‑Amal Dewani, Riasat Kalat, S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Contention by petitioner was that against the judgment and decree passed by Qazi, appeal was only competent before "Majlis‑e‑Shoora" and not before the District Judge‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑District Judge under S.14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was competent to hear an appeal against the judgment and decree of a Qazi appointed under S.4 of Dastoor‑ul‑Amal Dewani, Riasat Kalat. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad for Petitioner. Salahuddin Mengal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th October, 1999.