1994 PLP 125 (CLC)
ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SUGHRAN MAI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 125 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Arfrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SUGHRAN MAI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 125 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 125 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Arfrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 125 (CLC) (ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SUGHRAN MAI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Hashmi for Petitioner.
- Sardar Altaf Hussain Khan for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner who had challenged judgment and decree of Family Court according to which marriage of respondent was dissolved, had stated that parties may enter into a mutual compromise‑‑‑Contesting respondent had stated that after dissolution of marriage she had remarried‑‑‑No case having been made out by petitioner, Court declined to exercise discretionary Constitutional powers in case. Tassadaq Hussain Jillani, A.A: G.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1992, decided on 25th May, 1992. ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner who had challenged judgment and decree of Family Court according to which marriage of respondent was dissolved, had stated that parties may enter into a mutual compromise‑‑‑Contesting respondent had stated that after dissolution of marriage she had remarried‑‑‑No case having been made out by petitioner, Court declined to exercise discretionary Constitutional powers in case. Naveed Hashmi for Petitioner. Sardar Altaf Hussain Khan for Respondent No.l. Tassadaq Hussain Jillani, A.A: G. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on the statement of the petitioner that the parties may enter into a mutual compromise. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has appeared today before this Court. He states that his client has already remarried with another person. The marriage between the parties was dissolved on the basis of evidence by the learned Judge Family Court, Taunsa. This petition has been moved to challenge the validity of the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court dated 8‑3‑1992. The contesting respondent has remarried. A No case for interference has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This being so, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in a case like this. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with no 1A order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑493/L Petition dismissed.