1987 PLP 608 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus FARRUKH LATIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 608 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus FARRUKH LATIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 608 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 608 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 608 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI‑‑Petitioner Versus FARRUKH LATIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, R.1‑‑Impugned order being clear, without any ambiguity or legal error‑‑Petition for review, held, devoid of merits and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J‑‑ By this petition review is sought of the order of this Court, dated 17‑2‑1986 passed in Civil Petition II No. 135 of 1985 on the ground that the observation of this Court is 1 that Talaq between the parties could not be effected before the expiry of a period of ninety days from the date of delivery of notice to the Chairman as provided by section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. In this respect it is submitted by the learned counsel that the provision of law had already been complied with in the instant case because respondent No. 3 Mst. Sakina Babi had accepted the Talaq with her free consent through the Panchayat and on the notice she had appeared before the Chairman, Union Council and certified her consent. It is further contended that if the requirement of ninety days as observed by this Court is mandatory, even then the Talaq has become effective on 14‑10‑1982 as the notice of Talaq was delivered to the Chairman as well as to respondent No. 3 on 14‑7‑1982.
2. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find no force in them. The order of this Court speaks on the subject clearly without any ambiguity or legal error. It was observed in the impugned order that if the petitioner so desired he can serve notice on respondent No. 3 and thereafter pursue the remedies available to him under the law, which culminate into final divorce, Thus we find no merit in this review petition which is, consequently dismissed. M.I. /G‑3/S Review petition dismissed.