1989 PLP 1416 (SCMR)
Dr. ABDUL MAJID Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMAIRA BIBI and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1416 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ABDUL MAJID Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMAIRA BIBI and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1416 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1416 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1416 (SCMR) (Dr. ABDUL MAJID Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMAIRA BIBI and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16 October, 1988 in W.P. No.4137 of 1988). ‑‑‑ Divorce‑‑Maintenance‑‑Liability to maintain wife till the end of Iddat period is on the husband.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16 October, 1988 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner married respondent No.l (Mst. Humaira Bibi) on 4 January, 1986 but three days thereafter on 7 January 1986 left for Iran. He then divorced the aforesaid respondent on 25 September, 1986 and Talaq became effective on 27 September,1986. Thereafter the respondent made an application to the Arbitration Council which granted maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.2,000 p.m. for a period of one year from 5 January, 1986 to 21 December, 1986. The total amount of maintenance awarded came to Rs.24,000 The petitioner challenged the order of the Arbitration Council before the District Collector in revision but he was unsuccessful. Thereafter he filed writ petition against the same which as stated above was dismissed. Hence the preset petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the liability to maintain the respondent till the end of the Iddat period is on the petitioner. Therefore the respondent is entitled to receive the maintenance as ordered by the High Court. In that view of the matter no interference is called for. As a result this petition is dismissed. M.BA./A‑470/S Petition dismissed