1994 PLP 1016 (CLC)
ZULFIQAR All ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1016 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Fanukh, J |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR All ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1016 (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 1994 PLP 1016 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Fanukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1016 (CLC) (ZULFIQAR All ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Perwaiz for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'‑‑‑Wife made a categorical statement in Court that in no circumstances whatsoever she would be prepared to live with her husband and she would rather prefer death to her living with him as his wife‑‑‑Wife had developed deep hatred towards her husband‑‑‑Court keeping her statement in view and other attending circumstances of case, was fully justified to hold that husband and wife could not live together within limits of Allah and that no course was open except to decree suit for dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula`.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Amjad Perwaiz for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1992. The contesting parties were married, but unfortunately, the relationship got embittered and ultimately respondent No.l instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage. The learned trial Court on 10‑4‑1990 decreed the suit on the ground of Khula`. The counter‑suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations/charges of cruelty,. bad character and non‑maintenance have all been proved to be false and, therefore, there was clearly no justification for grant of decree on the basis of Khula`. In this view of the matter, it is contended that the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, merits to be quashed.
3. I am afraid, there is no force in this contention. Respondent No.l appeared in Court and made a categorical statement that in no circumstances .whatsoever she would be prepared to live with the petitioner and she would rather prefer death over her living with the petitioner as his wife. She has developed deep hatred, and the learned Judge Family Court, keeping in view her statement and the other attending circumstances of the case, was, therefore, fully justified to hold that the petitioner and the respondent could not live together within the limits of Allah and there was no course open for him except to decree the suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula`.
4. Learned counsel made a feeble effort to persuade me that respondent No.1 be summoned in Court so that last effort for reconciliation between the parties could be made. I have questioned the petitioner who is present with his learned counsel and he has stated in clear terms that even if respondent No.l is called in Court, he does not except a favourable, response from her.
5. No jurisdictional error has been pointed out. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./Z‑99/L Petition dismissed.