1992 PLP 1314 (CLC)
Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1314 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Imam Ali G. Kazi, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1314 (CLC)?
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 1992 PLP 1314 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Imam Ali G. Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1314 (CLC) (Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Wajid Wyne for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.8 ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner wife had failed to show that order setting aside ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage had been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction by Family Court‑‑‑Order passed by Family Court could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Wajid Wyne for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1991. The petitioner Mst. Mukhtar Begum has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on a number of grounds including ground of `Khula' before a Family Court at Karachi. When the case was fixed for hearing it was pointed out to the trial Judge that her husband Fida Hussain was served with the notice by the bailiff on her pointation and he refused to accept the summons from the bailiff. Such fact was noted in presence of certain witnesses and the summons were endorsed back to the Court. The Court held service as valid and ordered ex parte proceedings against the respondent. Ultimately the suit was decreed on the basis of `Khula'. A reference was made to the Chairman of the Local Council, who is said to have confirmed the divorce. It appears that thereafter certain criminal proceedings were initiated wherein the respondent Fida Hussain became aware of the ex partc decree passed against him. He, therefore, rushed to the Family Court and filed an application for urgent hearing during the vacation and prayed that ex parte decree passed against him be set aside. This application was, however, rejected and no orders were. passed on the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The respondent once again repeated his application for setting aside ex parte decree which was taken up by the IV Civil and Family Judge Karachi (West), who, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 15‑1‑1990, whereby ex parte decree passed in the suit was set aside and the, respondent No.1 was directed to file his written statement. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 199 of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, Advocate for the petitioner, has mainly contended that on the basis of evidence on record of the case, the trial Judge was not right in setting aside the ex parte decree, which was passed earlier in the case, particularly when the divorce was confirmed by the Council Chairman and she had contracted second marriage. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne Advocate for the petitioner has, however, not been able to show if the order impugned in this petition has been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction by the Family Judge to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the i Constitution. As a result, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1457/K?????? Petition dismissed.