1988 PLP 2100 (SCMR)
INAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2100 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, |
| Parties | INAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2100 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 2100 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2100 (SCMR) (INAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1988.
- Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 22-10-1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.4293 of 1985) .
Khula'--Husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed while wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on number of grounds including that of Khula' dismissed--District Judge, on appeal, decreed suit of wife on ground of Khula' setting aside decree passed in suit filed by husband--Revision petition of husband before High Court was also dismissed--Main ground put by husband was that at the time of Nikah dower amount was fixed at Rs.1,500 and he discharged this liability by giving her a house and that while granting decree to her, District Judge should have directed return of house to him- District Judge, in decree granted to wife, made a direction to wife to deposit Rs.1,500 in Court by a certain date as Zari-Khula'--High Court before whom same grievance had been made, noted that value of house was same as dower amount and declined interference--Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner before us was married to Mst.Parveen Akhtar respondent No.2 on 6‑10‑1978. On 26‑4‑1982. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on a number of grounds including that of Khula. On his part, the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. By an order dated 10‑10‑84, the family Court dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Mst. Parveen Akhtar filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. By his judgment dated 27‑7‑1985, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and granted the decree to her on the ground of Khula. He also set aside the decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not think that any case for interfering with the decree for dissolution of marriage has been made out. The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of Nikah with Mst. Parveen Akhtar the dower amount was fixed a' Rs.15,
000. To discharge the liability in this regard he had given her a house. While granting the decree to her the learned Additional District Judge should have directed the return of the house to him. It is to be noticed that in the decree a direction was given by the learned Additional District Judge to Mst. Parveen Akhtar to deposit Rs.15,000 in Court by a certain date as zar‑e‑khula. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge before whom the same grie vance was made that the value of the house was the same as the dower amount. In the circumstances, we do not think that any case for interference by this Court has been made out. Leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./I‑46/S Leave to appeal refused.