1989 PLP 4246 (MLD)
ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4246 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4246 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4246 (MLD)?
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: 1989 PLP 4246 (MLD) (ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Mahboob Ahmed for Respondent No.l.
- Ch. Ghulam Rasool for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--Dispute arising whether petitioner was wife of A or B--After alleged divorce by B petitioner contracted a second marriage with A--A filed suit for cancellation of Nikahnama which was dismissed--A then filed a suit for jactitation of marriage which was decreed--Appeal against said decree filed by petitioner was also dismissed by Additional District Judge--Writ petition was filed to challenge order of Additional District Judge‑‑During pendency of Writ petition, Federal Shariat Court, on appeal by A found that A failed to prove that petitioner contracted marriage during subsistence of her marriage with him‑In view of judgment of Federal Shariat Court, A & B had no objection if judgment of Additional District Judge was set aside and case remanded to him for decision afresh in the light of judgment delivered by Federal Shariat Court‑‑Submission was accepted by High Court and case remanded to Additional District Judge for decision afresh of appeals filed by parties in light of the judgment delivered by Federal Shariat Court and observations made by High Court after notice to parties.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Rasool for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989. The dispute in this writ petition is whether Zubaida Begum, petitioner, is the wife of Zahoor Elahi, respondent No.1, or Muhammad Bashir, respondent No.2.
2. Briefly, the facts are that after the alleged divorce by respondent No.2, the petitioner contracted a second marriage on 19‑5-1978. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of Nikahnama which was dismissed on 26‑1‑1981.His appeal was also dismissed on 14‑2‑1984. Thereafter, respondent No.l filed a suit for jactitation of marriage which was decreed on 18‑6‑1985. Two separate appeals were filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 against the said judgment and decree of the Judge Family Court, Sialkot, which were dismissed on 25‑1‑1986 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. The present writ petition seeks to challenge the aforesaid judgments and decrees on various‑ grounds.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Federal Shariat Court in Crl. Appeal No. 259/L of 1986 held that Zahoor Elahi complainant (respondent No.l herein) failed to prove that Mst. Zubaida Begum (petitioner herein) contracted marriage during the subsistence of her marriage with him. For these reasons, the conviction and sentences imposed on Muhammad Bashir, (respondent No.2 herein) under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide judgment dated 23‑8‑1986, were set aside. Respondent No.l has filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court against the said judgment of the Federal Shariat Court dated 10‑3‑1987 which is still pending.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the Federal Shariat ‑Court learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 25‑1‑1986, is set aside and the case is remanded to him for decision afresh in the light of the judgment now delivered by the Federal Shariat Court.
5. The petitioner is not present but since a favourable proposal has been made by the contesting husbands of the petitioner, I have no objection to accept the same.
6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 25-1-1986 is hereby quashed and the C case is remanded to him for decision afresh of the appeals filed by the parties, in the light of the observations made in this judgment, after notice to the parties. To this extent, the writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs? M.Y.H./Z-115/L Petition allowed.