1989SCMR568 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMANAT BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR568 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid 1qbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMANAT BIBI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR568 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR568 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid 1qbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR568 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AMANAT BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate (absent) and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 29 July, 1984 in C.R. No.429/D of 1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Husband and wife‑‑Suit by wife against her former husband for payment of price of her property left in his house‑‑Civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of such suit‑‑Price of goods being a finding of fact which had been decided against petitioner husband, would not call for interference in the impugned judgment of High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate (absent) and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Multan Bench dated 29th July, 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondent Mst. Amanat Bibi ex‑wife of the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.18,3W against the petitioner on account of the price of her goods left in the house of her former husband when she was turned out of his house as a result of divorce pronounced on her. The trial Court decreed her claim only to the extent of Rs.4,
000. Thereupon both the parties filed two separate appeals before the District Judge who vide his consolidated judgment dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but partly accepted that of the respondent by enhancing the decretal amount to Rs.14,
600. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of civil revision which had been dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. Hence the present petition. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the suit of the respondent as it included price of the ornaments which had been given to the respondent by the petitioner by way of dower. According to the learned counsel the claim of the respondent fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Judge Family Court. This argument of the learned counsel has no force because in the suit of the respondent as correctly observed by the High Court no claim at all had been made for the payment of dower but the respondent's suit was merely for payment of price of her property left in the house of the petitioner. Therefore the Civil A Judge had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the suit. In any case so far as the price of her goods was concerned this is a finding of fact which had been decided against the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed. AA./M‑684/S Leave to appeal refused.