1989SCMR 170 (PLP)
Mst. AMNA ZAKARIYA — Petitioner Versus M. ZAKARIYA KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR 170 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AMNA ZAKARIYA — Petitioner Versus M. ZAKARIYA KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIll of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 170 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIll of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 170 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR 170 (PLP) (Mst. AMNA ZAKARIYA — Petitioner Versus M. ZAKARIYA KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zamir Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaffari, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Khan Khudad Khan Barki, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1988.
- Syed Zamir Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jaffari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Khan Khudad Khan Barki, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 &. Sched.- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Finding rendered by High Court that divorce had become effective not suffering from any infirmity--(question raised by counsel concluded by a finding of fact against petitioner--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Khudad Khan Barki, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The petitioner in this family matter, has called in question the judgment dated 2‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby her Constitutional petition arising out of a case of divorce was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on some judgments of the Superior Courts contended that the relevant provisions of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 regarding service of notice of Talaq on the petitioner not having been complied with, the Talaq stated to have been pronounced by the respondent No. 1 never became effective. Leaving aside the other questions dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the High Court, the question raised by the learned counsel stands concluded by a finding of fact; namely, that the requisite notice was in fact served on the petitioner. Reliance of the learned counsel on some of the observations of Chairman of Local/Arbitration Council, is of no help to the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel, we have come to the conclusion that the findings rendered by the; learned Judge in the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal and the same accordingly is refused. It needs to be mentioned that although the petition for leave to appeal has been reported by the office as badly barred by time, we after hearing the g learned counsel in the circumstances of this case, (a woman having confidently asserted that she had not been divorced) thought it fit to examine the merits but she having failed on questions of fact, could not be granted any relief. M.Y.H./A‑346/S Leave refused.