1991 PLP 1545 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN LALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1545 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN LALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1545 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1545 (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 1545 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN LALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Basra for Petitioner.
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Controversy raised in petition regarding maintenance granted to the respondent wife which had been concluded by a finding of fact of Courts below, was not open to interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Controversy raised in petition regarding maintenance granted to the respondent wife which had been concluded by a finding of fact of Courts below, was not open to interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Ch. Muhammad Afzal Basra for Petitioner. Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Respondent No.
3. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 15‑11‑1989, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 3‑3‑1986 passed by the learned trial Court relating to maintenance to respondent No.3 at the rate of Rs.500 per month.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.3 had been living separately and, therefore, there was no justification for grant of maintenance, particularly, in view of the fact that respondent No.3 is earning more than the petitioner and she has refused to live with the petitioner.
3. The controversy raised in this petition is concluded by a finding of fact which is not open to interference in the exercise of writ petition.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑2684/L Petition dismissed.