2008 PLP 2035 (YLR)
Syed BAQAR RAZA — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHINDA BAQAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2035 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | Syed BAQAR RAZA — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHINDA BAQAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2035 (YLR)?
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 2008 PLP 2035 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2035 (YLR) (Syed BAQAR RAZA — Petitioner Versus Messrs SHAHINDA BAQAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamil Ahmed Virk for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Concurrent findings of two courts below
Contentions of the petitioner (husband) was that both the lower courts had failed to appreciate that there was no matrimonial relation between the parties, but there was specific issue on the point which could have been decided by the courts below
Petitioner had failed to point out that he had made an application in respect of the said issue for its amendment before the lower courts or that actually he had divorced his wife in accordance with Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
No notice of Talaq was available on the file as required by S.7, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, even in the grounds of appeal there was nothing in respect of the contention of the petitioner that Trial Court, despite request, failed to frame issue on the subject nor the Appellate Court was requested about the same
High Court declined interference with the concurrent judgments of lower courts, in revision.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--This revision application has been filed against the concurrent findings of two courts below. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit, while learned District Judge maintained it by judgment dated 24-12-2005. Now the learned counsel has argued that both the learned lower courts have failed to appreciate that there was no matrimonial relation but there was specific issue on the point which could have been decided by the courts, below. On query, learned counsel has failed to point out that it made an application in this respect for the amendment of issue before the lower courts, or that actually he has divorced his wife in accordance with Family Law. There is no notice of Talaq available in the file as required under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Even in the ground of appeal, there is nothing in respect to contention as alleged that learned trial Court despite request failed to frame any issue nor the learned District Judge was requested even at the appellate stage. In the circumstances findings of both the lower Courts cannot be interfered in this petition, which is dismissed. M.B.A./B-35/K Petition dismissed.