2004 PLP 828 (CLC)
KHAN MUHAMMAD JAVED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN NASREEN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 828 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD JAVED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN NASREEN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 828 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 828 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 828 (CLC) (KHAN MUHAMMAD JAVED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN NASREEN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Umar Draz Khan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Irshad Ullah Chatha for Respondents.
- Akhtar Ali Qureshi, A.A.‑G. for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing; 19th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑ Laches‑‑‑ Principle of estoppel‑--Applicability‑‑‑‑Husband divorced his wife and sent a notice to Chairman Arbitration Council‑‑‑Proceedings were initiated on the notice and resultantly divorce effectiveness certificate was issued by the Chairman‑‑‑During the pendency of appeal against judgment and decree passed against the husband in the suit for maintenance filed by the wife, the husband asserted that the divorce was not effective‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑If the husband was aggrieved by any action of the Chairman Arbitration Council, he could have earlier, challenged the same or refused to obey his directions but the husband had duly complied with the directions passed by the Chairman, issued notice of divorce and did not challenge the omission on any action earlier‑‑‑Husband was estopped by his conduct‑‑‑Omission on action taken on the divorce at the time when maintenance decree was passed against the husband and appeal against the same was pending adjudication before the Appellate Court, the Constitutional' petition suffered from laches as it was an afterthought after the maintenance decree had been passed by the competent Court‑‑ Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Irshad Ullah Chatha for Respondents. Akhtar Ali Qureshi, A.A.‑G. for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing; 19th January, 2004. This be considered as admitted case.
2. Precise facts in this writ petition are that according to the contention of petitioner notice of divorce was given on 23‑6‑2001, which was received by the office on 12‑9‑2001, it was not made effective although the notice of divorce was not withdrawn by husband rather Chairman Arbitration Council directed the petitioner to send the notice through the Embassy duly witnessed by two witnesses to the divorce and the petitioner was constrained to send the divorce on 5‑4‑2003 through special power of attorney duly attested by the Embassy.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition mala fidely as suit for recovery of maintenance allowance has been filed by respondent and stands decreed in her favour. That the petitioner is estopped by his conduct to challenge the instant certificate of effectiveness. He has alleged that divorce was given on 23‑6‑2001 and it was not made effective by Chairman Arbitration Council then he could not challenge the same but he kept quite rather he complied with the orders of Chairman Arbitration Council.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The divorce‑deed is available on the record of Nazim, which is dated 5‑4‑2003 and in this divorce‑deed he is submitting that he is divorcing the respondent on 5‑4‑2003 in presence of the witnesses and he has no relationship with her. However, he has sent the divorce on 23‑6‑2001, the proceedings were conducted on this divorce‑deed. The petitioner has never challenged the proceedings on divorce‑deed, dated 30‑6‑2001, rather he obeyed the order of Chairman Arbitration Council and sent the divorce‑deed through special attorney duly attested by the Embassy in Kuwait and he has obtained the certificate of effectiveness of divorce. If he was aggrieved by any action of the Chairman, Arbitration Council earlier he could have challenged the same or refuse to obey his directions but he has duly complied with the directions passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council, issued notice of divorce, dated 5‑4‑2003 A and did not challenge the omission on any action on the earlier alleged divorce, dated 30‑6‑2001, rather the respondent submits, was not received by her. In this way he is estopped by his conduct.
5. The omission on action taken on the alleged divorce, dated 30‑6‑2001 at the time when maintenance decree is passed against him and appeal against the same is pending adjudication before the learned appellate Court, this writ petition also suffers from laches is liable to be dismissed on this score as it is afterthought after the maintenance decree is passed by the competent Court. Instant writ petition being without substance is dismissed. M.H./M‑122/L Petition dismissed.