1991 PLP 1702 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1702 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1702 (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 1991 PLP 1702 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1702 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Order had been passed after evidence was led by the parties which was duly considered by the Trial Court and, thereafter, decree for dissolution of marriage was passed‑‑‑Contention that the impugned order was based on oral evidence which was shaky and no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the case before Trial Court, was repelled‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence could not be undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Question raised being related to appreciation of evidence, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Order had been passed after evidence was led by the parties which was duly considered by the Trial Court and, thereafter, decree for dissolution of marriage was passed‑‑‑Contention that the impugned order was based on oral evidence which was shaky and no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the case before Trial Court, was repelled‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence could not be undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Question raised being related to appreciation of evidence, petition was dismissed. Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Respondents. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 15‑3‑1990 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Chiniot, whereby the suit filed by Mst. Kishwar Bibi respondent No.2 herein, for dissolution of marriage on the basis of her right of option of puberty was decreed.
2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is based on oral evidence which is shaky and no documentary evidence was produced by respondent No.2 to substantiate her case before the trial Court.
3. The submission is devoid of any force. The impugned order has been passed after evidence led by the parties which was duly considered by the trial Court and thereafter a finding was recorded that respondent No.2 was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of option of puberty. The question raised by the learned counsel for petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. M‑2969/L Petition dismissed.