1984 PLP 2201 (CLC)
Syed SAFDAR ALI ZIA‑Petitioned Versus Syeda UMME RABBAB‑Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 2201 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | Syed SAFDAR ALI ZIA‑Petitioned Versus Syeda UMME RABBAB‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 2201 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 2201 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 2201 (CLC) (Syed SAFDAR ALI ZIA‑Petitioned Versus Syeda UMME RABBAB‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Muhammad Ayub for Petitioner.
- M. Sultan Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th April, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Art. 199 ‑ West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, r. 6‑Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula‑Territorial jurisdiction of Court‑Onus to prove that wife was residing at O, not discharged by husband (petitioner)‑Contention of wife (respondent) that she was working at S in a school, accepted‑Judge Family Court at S, held, had territorial jurisdiction to decide case. (b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1960)‑‑ ‑‑ Ss. 7 & 8‑West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 7‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Decree of dissolu tion of marriage, on basis of Khula` grant of‑Trial Court coming to conclusion that relations between spouses were such that if they were compelled to live together they were not likely to observe limits of God‑Decree of dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula`, held, legitimately passed. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved on 7th December, 1981 on the ground of Khula. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that there was no justification for dissolution of marriage and also that the trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction.
2. The case was heard by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal while according to the petitioner the wife resides in Okara. The onus of this issue was placed on the petitioner but be was unable to discharge A it and the contention of the wife that she was working at Sahiwal in a school was accepted. Since at the relevant time the wife was residing at Sahiwal, the Court at Sahiwal did have the territorial juris diction. As regards the contention of the petitioner that no decree of dissolution could be granted, it is enough to notice that the trial Court was quite clear in coming to the conclusion that the relations between the parties were such that if they are compelled to live together they are not likely to observe the limits of God. After this finding a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula can legitimately be passed. The learned counsel has also argued that nothing has been given to the husband in return for Khula. As regards this question, no evidence was led before the Court regarding the benefits which the wife had received from the husband and for which orders could be made for its return. It was after consideration of this evidence that the Court consciously decided that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit out of Khula. In view of the above considerations the orders of the Judge Family Court do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1960)‑‑ ‑‑ Ss. 7 & 8‑West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 7‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Decree of dissolu tion of marriage, on basis of Khula` grant of‑Trial Court coming to conclusion that relations between spouses were such that if they were compelled to live together they were not likely to observe limits of God‑Decree of dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula`, held, legitimately passed. Rao Muhammad Ayub for Petitioner. M. Sultan Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th April, 1983. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved on 7th December, 1981 on the ground of Khula. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that there was no justification for dissolution of marriage and also that the trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction.
2. The case was heard by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal while according to the petitioner the wife resides in Okara. The onus of this issue was placed on the petitioner but be was unable to discharge A it and the contention of the wife that she was working at Sahiwal in a school was accepted. Since at the relevant time the wife was residing at Sahiwal, the Court at Sahiwal did have the territorial juris diction. As regards the contention of the petitioner that no decree of dissolution could be granted, it is enough to notice that the trial Court was quite clear in coming to the conclusion that the relations between the parties were such that if they are compelled to live together they are not likely to observe the limits of God. After this finding a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula can legitimately be passed. The learned counsel has also argued that nothing has been given to the husband in return for Khula. As regards this question, no evidence was led before the Court regarding the benefits which the wife had received from the husband and for which orders could be made for its return. It was after consideration of this evidence that the Court consciously decided that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit out of Khula. In view of the above considerations the orders of the Judge Family Court do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.