2009 PLP 1155 (MLD)
HAIDER ALI alias ASHIQUE — Petitioner Versus Mst. IRFANA and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1155 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAIDER ALI alias ASHIQUE — Petitioner Versus Mst. IRFANA and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1155 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1155 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1155 (MLD) (HAIDER ALI alias ASHIQUE — Petitioner Versus Mst. IRFANA and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mustafa Sahito for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5; Sched. & S. 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for jactitation
Suit for jactitation having concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, defendant had filed constitutional petition against said concurrent judgments and decrees
Contention of defendant that courts below had failed to discuss the evidence adduced by the parties, was repelled
Both the courts below for cogent reasons, did not believe the statement of Nikah Registrar
Besides said facts and circumstances, relief claimed, could not be granted in constitutional petition, which was discretionary relief and could only be granted in appropriate cases for the ends of justice
Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.
This constitutional petition, is directed against judgment, dated 13-3-2009 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Family Appeal No.1/2009 whereby he has dismissed the said appeal which was filed by the petitioner against the judgment, dated 23-1-2009 passed by learned 2nd Civil and Family Judge, Gambat in suit filed by respondent No.1 for Jactitation of Marriage. In the said suit, plaintiff had prayed that her alleged marriage with the petitioner be declared false, as such her suit was decreed. There are concurrent findings of Courts below, and I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that Courts below failed to discuss the evidence adduced in the family suit by the parties. Learned counsel states that the Nikah Registrar was examined in Court, who has supported the version of the petitioner. Both the Courts below for cogent reasons did not believe the statement of Nikah Registrar. No other point has been urged during hearing of this constitutional petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Besides above facts and circumstances, relief claimed cannot be granted in constitutional petition which is a discretionary relief and can only be granted in appropriate cases for the ends of Justice. I did not find this matter in which constitutional petition is maintainable. Admittedly the alleged Nikahanama was executed on 12-7-2004 and even after lapse of five years the controversy is still going-on. In view of above facts and circumstances, I hold that this constitutional petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.5000 against the petitioner. H.B.T./H-34/K Petition dismissed.