1991 PLP 1296 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1296 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1296 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1296 (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 1296 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Isamil Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Ch. Sana Ullah Bajwa for Respondent No.l.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑ S. 9 ‑‑‑ Maintenance‑‑‑Grant of maintenance to wife by Arbitration Council beyond period of six years from date of filing application by wife in that respect, was declared illegal. Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and 3 others 1990 C L C 934 and Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum. and 3 others P L D 1972 SC 302 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Isamil Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ch. Sana Ullah Bajwa for Respondent No.l. Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and
3. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner which was accepted by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance for a period of 20 years from the filing of the application. This order of the Arbitration Council dated 19th December, 1985 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision which was dismissed by the Collector Sialkot on 25th of March, Y986.
2. The only contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, the learned counsel for, the petitioner was that the Arbitration Council could not have granted maintenance to the respondent for a period of 20 years but at the most, due to bar of limitation accept the claim for a period of six years. This contention of the learned counsel finds full support from the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and 3 others (1990 C L C 934) which was based upon the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others (P L D 1972 S C 302). This being so the grant of maintenance beyond the period of six years is without any legal authority. As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the order of Arbitration Council to the extent it directs the payment of maintenance for 9 period beyond six years from the date of filing of the application under 'section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is declared to be with6ut lawful authority and of no legal effect The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑2851/L Order accordingly.