1986 PLP 1556 (SCMR)
RASHID TARIQ KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1556 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID TARIQ KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1556 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1556 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1556 (SCMR) (RASHID TARIQ KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1981.
- Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.12
Decree passed against petitioner for dower and maintenance challenged in Writ Petition but petition failed--Contention that Family Court had not complied with provisions of S.12, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which required an attempt at reconciliation to be made at close of evidence--Family Court as well as High Court holding that in view of conduct of petitioner and behavior of parties there existed no possibility of reconciliation--View taken by Courts, held, could not be taken exception to--Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioner had challenged a decree passed against him for dower and maintenance in a Writ Petition before the High Court. The only ground urged had been the Family Court's non‑compliance of the provision of section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) which required an attempt at reconciliation to be made at the close of the evidence. The Family Court, for reasons recorded, held that there was no need 'for calling the parties for a reconciliation. The High Court also found that in view of the conduct of the petitioner and the behavior of the parties, there existed no possibility of reconciliation. In this connection it noted that as many as nine opportunities had been granted to the petitioner for arguments in the case and that he had shown similar attitude in the connected suit for dissolution of marriage. The High Court, therefore, declined to issue a writ in favour of the petitioner.
2. The same point, that is, the non‑compliance of the provision of section 12 has been urged before us. We feel that in the circumstance of the case, the view taken by the High Court cannot be taken exception to. This petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.