1989 PLP 171 (CLC)
RAB NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst KANIZAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 171 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst KANIZAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 171 (CLC)?
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 1989 PLP 171 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 171 (CLC) (RAB NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst KANIZAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Hussain for Petitioner Khan A. Hamid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.5‑ ‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Judgment of Appellate Court in family matter assailed‑‑No legal infirmity muchless jurisdictional defect pointed out in the impugned judgment‑‑Appellate Court had considered the points raised by parties before giving finding thereon‑‑No interference being called for in impugned judgment, exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction against same was declined by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.5‑ ‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Judgment of Appellate Court in family matter assailed‑‑No legal infirmity muchless jurisdictional defect pointed out in the impugned judgment‑‑Appellate Court had considered the points raised by parties before giving finding thereon‑‑No interference being called for in impugned judgment, exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction against same was declined by High Court. Sarfraz Hussain for Petitioner Khan A. Hamid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1988. The Petitioner Rab Nawaz has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the judgment and decree dated 1‑9‑1985 passed by respondent No.2 may be set aside by declaring it to have been passed without lawful authority and further the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bhakkar, dated 31‑3‑1985 be restored.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioner/ plaintiff instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No.l, which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment dated 31‑3‑1985. The respondent No.l Mst. Kanizan went in appeal, which was heard and accepted by learned respondent No. 2 on 1‑9,1985.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was absolutely no justification for the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, to accept the appeal of respondent No.l. The learned counsel for respondent No.l has submitted that the learned appellate Court has considered the evidence and finding on facts has been given by the learned Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity muchless jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment dated 1‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned appellate Court has considered the points raised and argued by the parties and thereafter he has given his findings thereon: The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out as to what evidence has not been considered by the appellate Court while accepting the appeal of respondent No.l. On the contrary I am of the view that entire evidence of the parties has been considered and he has arrived at a correct decision. In consequence there is no substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A . A . / R‑109 / L Petition dismissed