2004 PLP 16 (YLR)
Mst. SHAGUFTA SHEHNAZ and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 16 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHAGUFTA SHEHNAZ and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 16 (YLR)?
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 2004 PLP 16 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 16 (YLR) (Mst. SHAGUFTA SHEHNAZ and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.5, Sched. & 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Two separate suits for recovery of dower amount and for maintenance allowance‑‑‑Single appeal; competency of‑‑ Plaintiff (wife) filed two suits in Family Court against defendant; one for recovery of dower and expenses incurred on delivery of children and second for the maintenance allowance for herself and for children‑‑ Family Court consolidated two suits and by one judgment,, decreed one suit to the extent of dowry only while her claim regarding delivery expenses was dismissed and in the second suit maintenance allowance to the extent of children was granted, but claim of plaintiff for maintenance allowance was rejected‑‑‑Plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment of Family Court filed single appeal against said consolidated judgment assailing it on the ground that quantum of maintenance granted to minor children was less and dismissal of her claim regarding maintenance and recovery of delivery charges was illegal‑‑‑Appellate Court dismissed appeal filed by plaintiff on the ground that single appeal was not competent and two separate appeals should have been filed for obtaining different reliefs claimed by plaintiff ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, other than Ss.10 & 11 thereof, being inapplicable to the proceedings before Family forums, technical objection of filing a single appeal against consolidated judgment, when it was directed against decision in both the suits would not come in the way of, adjudication‑‑‑High Court accepted the Constitutional petition by plaintiff, set aside judgment of Appellate ,Court with direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Allah Bakhsh v. Mst. Shamshad Zohra and others 1985 SCMR 959 ref. Respondent No.3: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No.3: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2002 Mst. Shugufta Shehnaz has through this Constitutional petition assailed judgment of respondent No.1 Additional District Judge, Sahiwal passed on 20‑12‑2000.
2. She had filed two suits in the Family Court, Chichawatni against respondent No.3; one for recovery of her dower amounting to Rs.10,000 and expenses incurred on the delivery of two children amounting to Rs.85,000 and other for maintenance allowance for herself and said two minors. It was alleged by her that her husband respondent No.3 Ghulam Ghous had deserted her after a few months of their marriage and since then she is living in the house of her parents where the two children were born. The said respondent had neglected and failed to provide for their maintenance and. had also not paid her dower debt.
3. Both the suits were consolidated and eventually vide consolidated judgment, the former suit was decreed to the extent of dower only while her claim regarding delivery expenses to the tune of Rs.85,000 was dismissed and in the latter suit maintenance allowance to both the children was granted @ Rs.500 each per month while claim of the petitioner for maintenance allowance was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved thereby she filed a single appeal against the said consolidated judgment assailing it on the ground that quantum of maintenance allowance granted to the minors was less and dismissal of her claim regarding maintenance allowance and recovery of delivery charges was illegal.
5. The Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 20‑12‑2000 dismissed the appeal on the ground that a single appeal was not competent and the petitioner should have filed two separate appeals for obtaining different reliefs claimed by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ground which weighed with the learned Lower Appellate Court for dismissing the appeal is entirely erroneous as single appeal against consolidated judgment was competent. Reliance was placed on Allah Bakhsh v. Mst. Shamshad Zohra and others 1985 SCMR 959.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the authority cited by him which supports his contention.
7. As provisions of C.P.C. other than sections 10 and 11 were inapplicable to the proceedings, technical objection of filing a single appeal against consolidated judgment, when it was manifestly directed against the decision in both did not stand in the way of adjudication.
8. The writ petition is accordingly accepted. The impugned judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Chichawatni (respondent No. 1) is set aside. He is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. H.B.T./S‑766/L Petition accepted.