1996 PLP 1957 (SCMR)
RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1957 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1957 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1957 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1957 (SCMR) (RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRAN BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shaheryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1,995.
- Sh. Naveed Shaheryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16‑6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.2365 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's claim for dower amount was decreed by all the Courts including the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant's plea that plaintiff in earlier litigation for the recovery of same amount had relinquished her right to recover such amount, had been effectively dealt with by the Court in its judgment‑‑‑High Court, however, did not rightly set aside concurrent judgments of Courts below‑‑‑Defendant in earlier proceedings culminating into compromise had undertaken to keep plaintiff properly in his house and to make her live a happy life but after such compromise he divorced her within a month of compromise‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing plaintiff's suit warranted no interference‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16-6-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.2365 of 1992 filed by the petitioner against the decree of Rs.50,000 of the Family Court, Bhakkar, dated 3-2-1991 awarded to respondent No.1 as the amount of dower and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, by his judgment dated 15-1-1992, dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Naveed Shaheryar, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in presence of compromise application filed in the earlier suit in the Family Court (Exh.D/II), whereby respondent No. l had relinquished her right to recover Rs.50,000, the dower amount from the petitioner, the Family Court was not justified in decreeing the above suit and the appellate Court affirming the same.
3. The above contention has been effectively dealt with by the learned Judge in Chambers in the impugned judgment. However, it will suffice to observe that the learned Judge in chambers could not have set aside the above decree of the Family Court maintained in appeal in exercise of his Constitutional jurisdiction as admittedly the above concurrent finding was competently recorded by the two Courts below. The above alleged compromise was not incorporated and not accepted by the Court. The petitioner undertook to keep respondent No.1 in his house happily but within a period of 1 month, he divorced her. It may be pertinent to reproduce the relevant observation from the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:-- "Even otherwise the alleged compromise deed read as a whole would show that the remission was on the condition that the respondent will be looked after properly and she will be made to live a happy life, but what actually happened was that within 1 month of the withdrawal of the suit the respondent was divorced. In these circumstances the learned Additional District Judge was justified in observing that the remission had, automatically ended with the non-Fulfillment of the obligation on the part of the petitioner which he had undertaken for happy living of the respondent in his house. The concurrent conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below are well base. "
4. The above petition has no merits. Leave is refused A.A./R-258/5 Leave refused