MLD 2010

2010 PLP 1737 (MLD)

AMAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR, and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2010-May-25
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 1737 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties AMAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR, and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1737 (MLD)?

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 2010 PLP 1737 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1737 (MLD) (AMAN ULLAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR, and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Akram Khan Awan for Petitioner.
  • Manzoor Ahmed Janjua for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 5 & Sched.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Suit for jactitation of marriage-- Plaintiff filed suit for jactitation of marriage on the ground that she was abducted by the defendant and her alleged Nikah was fake and forged

Defendant also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights

Trial Court dissolved marriage on the basis of khula in lieu of dower and the suit filed by defendant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, in the consolidated judgment and decree

Plaintiff filed appeal, which was allowed by Appellate Court and the suit filed for jactitation of marriage was decreed

Contention of the defendant was that plaintiff herself appeared before High Court in the year 2006 and recorded her statement that she had contracted marriage with the defendant with her own free volition and had further stated that her father and brothers were not happy with this marriage and they were illegally interfering in her matrimonial life

Validity

Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record confirming that plaintiff had validly entered into a contract of marriage with her free will with the defendant

Plaintiff had appeared as her own witness before the Family Court but had not deposed before the Family Court that her statement in the year 2006 before High Court was under pressure, duress and coercion

Appellate Court had wrongly set aside the judgment of the Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed by High Court.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Through this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2008 and 25-11-2008.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents filed, a suit against the petitioner for jactitation of marriage claiming, that she was abducted by the petitioner and the alleged Nikah Nama dated 18-10-2009 is a fake and forged document. Further claimed that on the day of alleged Nikah she was a minor. The petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated and the learned Family Court after recording the evidence dissolved the marriage of petitioner on the basis of Khula in lieu of dower and the suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal was dismissed. The respondent assailed the judgment and decree dated 29-7-7007 through an appeal. The appeal was allowed and the suit for jactitation of marriage was decreed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that respondent herself appeared before Lahore High Court Lahore Bench at Multan in Writ Petition No 6482 of 2006 and on 8-12-2006 recorded her statement in categorical manner confirming; that she has contracted marriage with Aman ullah of her own free volition, her father and brothers are not happy with this marriage and they are illegally interfering in her matrimonial life. On the statement of respondent this Court disposed of the petition with the follow orders:-- "Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a complaint under section 506 which too was dismissed. She also lodged an F.I.R. which was also discharged but the learned appellate court has wrongly held that no Nikah was performed between the parties and has wrongly relied upon the school certificate and copy of attendance register submitted by the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it has been proved on record that respondent was minor as per her birth certificate and also on the day of alleged Nikah she was in her school. He adds that the statement before Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petition No.6482 of 2006 was under duress and coercion.

6. The controversy between the parties erupted when the respondent abandoned the petitioner. She entered into a contract of marriage with her free-will as is evident from her statement before this Court. The respondent remained with the petitioner upto February, 2007 when her father filed a Writ Petition No.151 of 2007 claiming that she is in illegal custody of the petitioner. The respondent appeared in the Court on 8-2-2007 and made the statement in Court as under: "Mst. Perveen Akhtar respondent No.1, the daughter of the petitioner and alleged wife of respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court. A meeting was arranged between the father and daughter. After the meeting Mst. Perveen Akhtar respondent daughter of the petitioner states that she would like to go with her father. It is claimed by the petitioner that she is a minor. Respondent No.2 himself appears to be of 35 years of age. Since Mst. Perveen Akhtar respondent states that she would like to accompany her father, she is at liberty to do so."

7. She continued to register F.I.R. and complaints etc. against the petitioner but her all efforts failed.

8. The learned appeal Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record confirming that the respondent validly entered into a contract of marriage with her free-will with the petitioner. She appeared as her own witness before the Family Court but has not deposed before the learned Family Court that her statement dated 8-12-2006 before this Court was under pressure, duress and coercion. The learned appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly set aside the judgment of learned Family Court, the learned Family Court has rightly passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula.

9. In view of above, the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of learned trial Court is restored. This petition succeeds and the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2008 is declared without any lawful authority. There is no order as to costs. M.U.Y./A-135/L Petition allowed.