1986 PLP 589 (CLC)
Mst. RUQIA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, SIALKOT
| Citation | 1986 PLP 589 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUQIA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, SIALKOT |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 589 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 589 (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: 1986 PLP 589 (CLC) (Mst. RUQIA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, SIALKOT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Ahmad Baloch for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.9‑‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.9‑‑Divorce‑ Maintenance‑‑Collector setting aside order of Arbitration Council, regarding grant of maintenance allowance to wife on ground that she had been divorced in meantime by husband‑‑No material existing on record to support view of Collector that notice of divorce was duly received by lady and by Union Committee‑‑Case remitted to Arbitration Council for fresh‑ inquiry regarding notice of divorce referred to in order of Collector. Respondent No.3:Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.9‑‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.9‑‑Divorce‑ Maintenance‑‑Collector setting aside order of Arbitration Council, regarding grant of maintenance allowance to wife on ground that she had been divorced in meantime by husband‑‑No material existing on record to support view of Collector that notice of divorce was duly received by lady and by Union Committee‑‑Case remitted to Arbitration Council for fresh‑ inquiry regarding notice of divorce referred to in order of Collector. Shah Ahmad Baloch for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Respondent No.3:Ex parte. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1985. A maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month was granted to the petitioner by the Chairman, Arbitration Council of Union Committee No.10 of Sialkot, vide his order, dated 22‑8‑1982. In revision the learned District Collector, Sialkot set aside the orders of the Arbitration Council on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to ask for any maintenance as she has been divorced in the meantime by her husband.
2. The respondent No.3, the husband in the case, had to be proceeded ex parte as he did not respond to the notice of this Court and even the notice published in the newspaper.
3. The perusal of the record of the conciliation Court shows that a report was made by the Secretary of the Union Committee on 15‑7‑1982 regarding the notice of divorce referred to in the orders of the Collector. The Secretary was emphatic that no notice was received by the, Union Committee. There is no other material on the record which may support the view of the Collector that on perusal of the file he found that notice of divorce was duly received by the lady and by the Union Committee. The learned counsel has stated that the Collector in all fairness should have ordered the remand of the case to the Union Council for fresh inquiry and not set aside the orders merely on the ground of perusal of the file which, as demonstrated above, does not contain any material supporting the view of the Collector. Under these circumstances it is only fair that the matter is remitted back to the Arbitration Council for fresh inquiry regarding the notice of divorce referred to in the orders of the Collector. Order accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Case remanded.