1996 PLP 702 (MLD)
Malik SANAULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROHEELA HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 702 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | Malik SANAULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROHEELA HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 702 (MLD)?
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 1996 PLP 702 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 702 (MLD) (Malik SANAULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ROHEELA HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha for Petitioner
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent No
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 1992
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'‑‑‑Consideration for‑‑ Husband had claimed that marriage having been dissolved on ground of Khula', he should have been granted amount which he had spent on education of his wife‑‑‑Husband had failed to produce on record any evidence about expenses which he allegedly had spent on education of his wife‑‑‑Even otherwise such expenses could not be considered to be such benefit which was to be returned to him at the time of claiming Talaq‑e‑Khula'.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha for Petitioner Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent No Date of hearing: 8th November, 1992 Through this Constitutional petition, Malik Sana Ullah petitioner has challenged a decree for dissolution of marriage passed in favour of respondent No. l vide judgment and decree, dated 9‑9‑1991 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mianwali, on the ground of Khula'.
2. The only grievance raised by Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petty amount of Rs.250 has been determined as amount for return to the petitioner although he should have been granted huge amount spent by the petitioner on the respondent's education. Learned counsel has not challenged the right of respondent No.l to claim dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'.
3. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No. l has controverted the factual aspect about the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner on the education of respondent No. 1.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that there is absolutely no evidence about the alleged expenses which according to the petitioner have been incurred by him on the education of the respondent. Even otherwise I do not consider any such expenses can be considered to be the benefit which is to be returned at the time of claiming Talaq Khula'. I am told the respondent No. l has already married about 8 months earlier. The impugned order is quite lawful, fair and just. No ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./S‑486/L Petition dismissed