P L D 1979 Lahore 36 (PLP)
ZARINA BIBI‑Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ETc.‑Respondents ,.
| Citation | P L D 1979 Lahore 36 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | ZARINA BIBI‑Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ETc.‑Respondents ,. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Lahore 36 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Lahore 36 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Lahore 36 (PLP) (ZARINA BIBI‑Petitioner Versus MEHBOOB ETc.‑Respondents ,.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Suleman for Petitioner. Muhammad Shafiq for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VII of 1961)‑ S. 7‑Talaq, notice of‑Notice of talaq sent by husband to Secretary, Union Council‑Cannot be acted upon by Secretary of Council in absence of its Chairman and Secretary's order that talaq had become effective due to expiry of time provided in notice without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑[ Muhammadan Law‑Divorce).
Judgment & Decree
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VII of 1961)‑ S. 7‑Talaq, notice of‑Notice of talaq sent by husband to Secretary, Union Council‑Cannot be acted upon by Secretary of Council in absence of its Chairman and Secretary's order that talaq had become effective due to expiry of time provided in notice without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑[ Muhammadan Law‑Divorce). Muhammad Suleman for Petitioner. Muhammad Shafiq for Respondent No.
1. The respondent No. 1 had sent a notice of Talaq to the Secretary, Union Council No. 46, Chak No. 48, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. It was taken up by the Secretary (respondent No. 2) who after holding that there was no Chairman and no other authority to bring about reconciliation as provided in law, held that as the time provided in the notice had expired, the Talaq has become effective. It is against that order that the present writ petition has been filed. It was admitted on 21st of February, 1978. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 alongwith his counsel appeared before me today. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that his client has no objection if the order of respondent No. 1 is set aside, for the same is without jurisdiction. He further stated that the parties have already patched up.
2. In view of the fact that the Secretary has no authority to issue such' a notice and for the reason the parties have compromised, this petition is A allowed. The impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs. s. A. H. Petition accepted.