1989 PLP 173 (SCMR)
JAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 173 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid 1qbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 173 (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 173 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid 1qbal, 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 173 (SCMR) (JAN MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riazul Hassan Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1988.
- Syed Riazul Hassan Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 28-9-1985 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 663/85).
S. 7-- West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula' and non-maintenance--Family Court decreeing suit of wife for dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula with observation that she was not entitled to get back articles of dowry and that she should surrender those articles as Zar-e-Khula'--Husband praying for return of benefits from wife which she received from him--Sufficient material available on record to support decree of Family Court--Husband in his statement before Family Court, made no claim that he had given any property, movable or immovable etc. to his wife--Husband's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court with observation that there was sufficient evidence to grant a decree of dissolution even on ground of non-maintenance--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 7‑‑ West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5k& Sched.‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula' and non‑maintenance‑‑Family Court decreeing suit of wife for dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula with observation that she was not entitled to get back articles of dowry and that she should surrender those articles as Zar‑e‑Khula'‑‑Husband praying for return of benefits from wife which she received from him‑‑Sufficient material available on record to support decree of Family Court‑‑Husband in his statement before Family Court, made no claim that he had given any property, movable or immovable etc. to his wife‑‑Husband's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court with observation that there was sufficient evidence to grant a decree of dissolution even on ground of non-maintenance‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Syed Riazul Hassan Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal was married to Mst. Rashidan Bibi, respondent No. 2 on 6‑12‑1982. Mst. Rashidan Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of marriage inter alia on the ground of Khula' and non‑maintenance. The Family Court at Sahiwal decreed her suit on the ground of Khula' with the observation that she was not entitled to get back the articles of dowry and that she should surrender those articles as Zar‑e‑Khula. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the decree passed by the learned Family Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the observation that there was sufficient evidence to grant a decree of dissolution even on the ground of non‑maintenance. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that there was sufficient material on the record to support the decree of the learned Family Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with it. It may be mentioned that before the learned Family Court, the petitioner had raised a question of its territorial jurisdiction but it was decided against him. He has not pressed this objection before us. His only grievance is that while decreeing the suit the learned Family Court did not call upon Mst. Rashidan Bibi to return the benefits, which she had received, from him. We have gone through the statement, which the petitioner made before the learned Family Court. In that statement he has made no claim that he had given any property, movable or immovable, to his wife. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where leave should be granted. The petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./J‑36/S Petition dismissed.