1991 PLP 1706 (CLC)
Kh. ZAHID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1706 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | Kh. ZAHID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1706 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1706 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1706 (CLC) (Kh. ZAHID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXIV, R.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Framing of issue as to impotency of husband‑‑‑Petitioner husband at conclusion of wife's evidence sought constitution of medical board with a view to establishing his potency, which was turned down by Trial Court on the ground that not only in view of pleadings of parties, framing of issue with regard to husband's impotency was not called for, but also requirement of same stood sufficiently negated on account of child's birth during currency of marriage between parties and non‑pressing of same by respondent's counsel‑‑‑Petitioner's further reiteration of same proposition met the same fate ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑ Constitutional petition was misconceived in view of findings recorded by Trial Court and same appeared to have been designed to prolong litigation‑‑‑Law also does not favour piecemeal adjudication of causes‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(2) Whether the defendant is addicted to intoxicants? (3) Whether the defendant has failed to provide maintenance allowance to the plaintiff for the last two years? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Khula`, if so, on what terms? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover her dower amount Rs.40,000 from the defendant? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover maintenance allowance from the defendant, if so, from what period and to what extent? (7) To what monthly maintenance allowance Sitra Khauja the minor plaintiff No.2 of Suit No.23 of 1989 consolidated to the present suit is entitled and from what period? (8) Relief." ' At the conclusion of the respondent's evidence vide application dated 1‑7‑1990 petitioner sought constitution of medical board with a view to establishing his potency, which was turned down by the trial Court on 22‑12‑1990 on the ground that not only in view of pleadings of the parties framing of the issue as to petitioner's impotency is not called for, but also requirement of the same stands sufficiently negated on account of the child's birth during currency of the parties marriage, additionally the respondent's counsel resolved not to press Issue No. 2 still dissatisfied therewith petitioner reiterated the same proposition by requesting for the framing of an additional issue as to impotency, which met the same fate vide the impugned order dated 7‑2‑1991; legality whereof has been assailed in these proceedings by contending that the allegation of impotency caused due to intoxication has not been withdrawn, despite its factum having been repelled by the child's birth. I am afraid, the petition is misconceived in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court and appears to have been devised to prolong the litigation. Independent thereof the law does not favour piecemeal adjudication of causes: resultantly the petition is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./Z‑214/L Petition dismissed.