1985 PLP 959 (SCMR)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMSHAD ZOHRA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 959 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMSHAD ZOHRA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 959 (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 1985 PLP 959 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 959 (SCMR) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMSHAD ZOHRA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate and M.S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4th June 1984 in Writ Petition No.3762 of 1981). --‑Ss.14 & 17‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 9 & 10‑‑Appeal Single appeal filed against consolidated judgment in two cases Appeal dismissed on merits and on such technical ground‑‑Order impugned in Constitutional petition‑‑Case remanded for decision afresh on ground that Courts below had misdirected themselves in exercising jurisdiction possessed by them‑‑Order of remand challenged‑‑Provisions of Civil Procedure Code other than Ss. 10 and 11 being inapplicable to proceedings, technical objection of filing a single appeal against consoli dated judgment, when it was manifestly directed against decision in both, not to stand in way of adjudication‑‑Trial Court to record its own finding afresh after adverting to sources indicated in impugned judgment‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner, a husband, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑6‑1984 whereby a Family Court matter was remanded for decision afresh. The petitioner sought restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent wife sought dissolution of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the wife's suit, and decreed that of the husband. The filed only one appeal questioning the judgment common to both the causes. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on merits as well as for the reason that only one appeal was filed and not two. The High Court in allowing the Constitutional Petition and remanding the case held that the two Courts dealing with the matter had misdirected themselves, as enumerated‑hereunder, in exercising the jurisdiction possessed by them:‑ "(i) Dissolution by Khula was considered not justified as the "wife has got married once too often". After examining the background of this marriages it was held "Khula cannot be refused on these grounds. (ii) There was material on the record which was ignored by both the Courts. (iii) In coming to the conclusion that the marriage of the respondent No.l was not irregular the two Courts did not advert to certain sources pointed out by the learned Judge." The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, inter alia that the defect in appeal noted and given effect to by the first appellate Court was not even noted and the remand to the trial Court was ordered on the assumption that the appeal was competently filed. the learned counsel also wanted to demonstrate that the marriage of respondent No.l with the petitioner was riot at all irregular. This being a case of remand to the Family Court, we do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case. For the purposes of allaying the apprehensions of the petitioner we may observe that even on the question of the marriage being irregular the trial Court shall be free to record its own finding afresh but only after adverting, among others, to the sources indicated in the impugned judgment. As provisions of C.P.C. other than sections 10 and 11 are inapplicable to the proceedings the technical objection of filing of a single appeal against a consolidated judgment when it was manifestly directed against the decision in both, would not stand in the way of adjudication in accordance with law. We do not consider it a fit case for leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed