1989 PLP 1255(1) (SCMR)
Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID IOBAL and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1255(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID IOBAL and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1255(1) (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1255(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1255(1) (SCMR) (Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR Petitioner Versus JAVAID IOBAL and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27‑3‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No.315 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Maintenance‑‑Finding of Collector that for the period prior to making of the application husband had been providing maintenance to the wife‑‑Said finding being that of fact, High Court was justified in not interfering with it in Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.800 per month by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council not only for the period during which her application remained pending but from the date which preceded the institution of the application by 5 years. On a revision taken by the respondent, the Collector modified the order of the Chairman and disallowed the maintenance for the period prior to the making of the application. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Collector in writ jurisdiction before the High Court but without success. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a finding by the Collector that for the period prior to the making of the application the respondent has been providing maintenance to the petitioner. This was a finding of fact and the High Court was justified in not interfering with it. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./S‑300/S Petition dismissed.