1991 PLP 1647 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BASHIRAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1647 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BASHIRAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1647 (CLC)?
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 1991 PLP 1647 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1647 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BASHIRAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'‑‑‑Appellate Court, while decreeing wife's suit on ground of Khula`, did not find husband entitled to restoration of benefits‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Husband, although in written statement, had categorically asserted that wife had taken away golden ornaments and a specified amount, yet no demand was made by him, either in written statement or as a witness for restoration of those benefits‑‑‑Appellate Court was thus, correct in observing that no benefits were to be restored to husband‑‑ Petition against grant of Khula` by Appellate Court was dismissed in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari and another P L D 1989 Lah. 31 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'‑‑‑Appellate Court, while decreeing wife's suit on ground of Khula`, did not find husband entitled to restoration of benefits‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Husband, although in written statement, had categorically asserted that wife had taken away golden ornaments and a specified amount, yet no demand was made by him, either in written statement or as a witness for restoration of those benefits‑‑‑Appellate Court was thus, correct in observing that no benefits were to be restored to husband‑‑ Petition against grant of Khula` by Appellate Court was dismissed in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari and another P L D 1989 Lah. 31 rel. Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. Respondent No.l Mst. Bashiran was given in marriage to Muhammad Sadiq petitioner about fifteen years ago. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner inter alia on the ground of Khula`. The petitioner also instituted a suit praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Both these suits were tried together and the Family Court after framing as many as fifteen issues recorded evidence of the parties. On 19th September, 1988 the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed while that of dissolution of marriage .was dismissed by the learned Family Court. Aggrieved by this judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 13th of September, 1989 on the ground that the respondent No.l was entitled to Khula`. As a result of this finding the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the respondent No.l was granted a decree for dissolution of marriage.
2. Mr. Nusrat Javed Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that while granting Khula` to respondent No.1 it was incumbent upon the lower Appellate Court to have determined Zar‑e‑Khula` and in the absence of any such determination, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge is not sustainable. Although in the written statement filed by the petitioner he has categorically asserted that respondent No.l, has taken away some golden ornaments and a sum of Rs.2,000 but there was no demand by him either in the written statement or in his statement as D.W.1 for restoration of these benefits. In these circumstances the Additional District Judge, was correct in observing, that no benefits are to be restored by respondent No.l (See Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala District Vehari and another (P L D 1989 Lah. 31). In this view of the matter, the present petition cannot succeed and is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA./M‑2964/L Petition dismissed.