1998 PLP 365 (MLD)
Mst. SHABANA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAFAQAT HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 365 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHABANA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAFAQAT HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 365 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 365 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 365 (MLD) (Mst. SHABANA HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAFAQAT HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hamid Khan for Petitioner.
- Raja Arshad for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 100
Constitutional petition-- Maintainability
Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula' on payment of specified amount as Zar-e-Khula'
Appellate Court modified such findings to the effect that plaintiff would only forego her claim for dower money
Plaintiff petitioner felt aggrieved only of that portion of judgment whereby she had to forego her dower amount
Judgment of First Appellate Court had been assailed by petitioner (plaintiff) in High Court only on the ground that under S.14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal was competent
Such plea of plaintiff had no force
Decision of Family Court on question of Zar-e-Khula' was subject to appeal under S.14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964-- Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hamid Khan for Petitioner. Raja Arshad for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1996. This Constitutional petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16-4-1995, of Additional District Judge Faisalabad.
2. The facts in brief are that the parties were married on 16-4-1993 for a consideration of deferred dower of Rs. one lac. On 20-2-1994, the Petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, inter alia, on the grounds of habitual cruelty, bad character and Khula, After recording the evidence of the parties on the respective issues the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 19-9-1994. decreed the petitioner's suit on the basis of Khula and the petitioner plaintiff was ordered to deposit Zar-e-Khula of Rs.12,000 uptil 29-9-1994 in the Court, aggrieved whereby, both the parties filed the separate appeals which were decided by the learned First Appellate Court by the single judgment and it was held by the Appellate Court the condition of payment of Rs.12,000 on account of Khula was without jurisdiction. Accordingly the said condition was held to be illegal. However, it was also held by the First Appellate Court that for dissolution of marriage on account of Khula the petitioner shall have to forego her claim for dower money of rupees one lac. The petitioner is aggrieved only of that portion of the judgment of the First Appellate Court whereby it has been held that. she is not entitled to make any claim for the dower money.
3. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has been assailed in this Court, by the learned counsel only on the ground that under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 no appeal. is competent against a decree passed by a Family Court for dissolution of marriage and as such it is contended that the learned First Appellate Court ought to have dismissed both the appeals.
4. I am afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. It has been held in Mst. Mehmooda Begum 'v. Muhammad Iqbal (1989 MLD 311 (Lahore) and Basharat Hussain v. Ijaz Bibi and others (1991 CLC 1328 (Lahore) that the decision of the Family Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula is subjected to appeal under section 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
5. As a result of the above, this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./S-155/L Petition dismissed.