P L D 1991 Supreme Court 779 (PLP)
DILSHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARAT NAZIR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1991 Supreme Court 779 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | DILSHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARAT NAZIR and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Supreme Court 779 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Supreme Court 779 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Supreme Court 779 (PLP) (DILSHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARAT NAZIR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑ S.7 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185 (3) ‑‑‑‑ Affirmation of dissolution of marriage through the ground of Khula' challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal ‑‑‑ Contention of petitioner/husband that while granting Khula' no direction for the return of monetary benefits had been made in favour of the petitioner ‑‑‑ High Court being satisfied that the dissolution of marriage by way of Khula' was based on evidence and there was no infirmity, legal or otherwise, however, had observed that if the petitioner was so keen for the return of benefits ,'if any, he could file a suit ‑‑‑ Held petitioner, as observed by the High Court, had the right to seek the remedy but in case like the present one, he not having insisted upon, at proper stage, for the determination of exact benefits received by the wife for their return, as it might have been thought below his dignity to do so, the same could not be asked for in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court which was highly discretionary Present case was not at all fit for grant of relief asked for in discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court ‑‑‑ Judgment ‑ of the High Court being unexceptionable and matter having finally stood closed, it would be futile exercise for petitioner to file a fresh suit ‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused.
- Sh. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1991
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑2‑1991 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 3272 of 1982). Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) Akhlaq Ahmad v. Kishwar Sultana PLD 1983 SC 169 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ .‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by an ex‑male partner in a marriage contract against the affirmation of the dissolution of the marriage through the ground of Khula' in writ jurisdiction. The only point urged is that while granting Khula' no direction for the return of monetary benefits has been made in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the learned Judge in the High Court was satisfied that the dissolution impugned in the High Court was based on evidence and there was no infirmity, legal or otherwise. However, by way of abundant caution some observation in the case of Akhlaq Ahmad v. Kishwar Sultana PLD 1983 Supreme Court 169 was made. It was observed that if the petitioner was so keen for the return of benefits if any, he could file a suit. In so far as the said obsevation goes it is the right of the petitioner to seek the remedy but in a case like the present one, he not having insisted upon at proper stage for the determination of the exact benefits received by the respondent's side nor for their return as it might have been thought below his dignity to do so, the same could not be asked for in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which is highly discretionary. Therefore, in addition to what the High Court observed we feel that it was not a fit case for grant of relief asked for in the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable for this additional reason also. And hence the matter now finally stands closed. It will be futile exercise for the petitioner to file a fresh civil suit. Leave is refused. M.BA./D‑86/S Leave refused