1998 PLP 954 (SCMR)
ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 954 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 954 (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 1998 PLP 954 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 954 (SCMR) (ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ABIDA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1995.
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 3. However, we have examined the case on merits. The thrust of the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, was that the learned Judge Family Court had not recorded a finding of fact independently on the question, whether the petitioner and respondent No.1 could not live within the limits prescribed by God for husband and wife.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑4‑1995 of. the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Writ Petition No.2816 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 5 & Sched.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)=‑‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'‑‑‑Finding rendered by Family Court was maintained by High Court in dismissing husband's Constitutional petition against judgment and decree of Family Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was barred by time by 35 days and ground for delay, that petitioner had undergone eye operation seemed to be not sufficient for operation was carried out prior to expiry of period of limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal‑‑ On merits too, there seemed to be no infirmity in reasoning of High Court in upholding finding of Trial Court‑‑‑High Court was justified in not pressing into service its Constitutional jurisdiction involving determination of question of fact which was competently concluded by Family Court, inter alia, on basis of admission of petitioner in cross‑examination‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was without merits‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN. J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24-4-1995 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.2816 of 1993, filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment/decree dated 24-6-1993 of the learned Judge Family Court, Jampur dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. l on the ground of Khula' dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed, the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The above petition is barred by time, by 35 days and the ground for the delay, that the petitioner had undergone through eye operation seems to be not sufficient as the operation was carried out prior to the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the petition for leave to appeal.
3. However, we have examined the case on merits. The thrust of the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, was that the learned Judge Family Court had not recorded a finding of fact independently on the question, whether the petitioner and respondent No.1 could not live within the limits prescribed by God for husband and wife.
4. The above contention is untenable. The learned Judge in Chambers has dilated upon this aspect as under:-- "The trial Court has also taken notice of the difference in the ages of the spouses. According to D.W.2, petitioner is aged about 70/80 years whereas the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is about 40 years of age. The defendant, when appeared as D.W.1 himself admitted in cross -examination that the wife hates him, because if she did not hate him, she would not have filed the suit, in view of this state of evidence, the objection to the grant of decree has no force and is hereby rejected. " In our, view, there is no legal infirmity in the above reasoning. The learned Judge in Chambers was justified in not pressing into service his Constitutional jurisdiction involving determination of question of fact which was competently concluded by the learned Judge Family Court inter alia on, the basis of the admission of the petitioner in cross-examination. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./A-1410/S Leave refused.