1987 PLP 2992 (MLD)
Syed ZAMIN HUSSAIN ABIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUBARAK BANG and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2992 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi, |
| Parties | Syed ZAMIN HUSSAIN ABIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUBARAK BANG and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2992 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2992 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2992 (MLD) (Syed ZAMIN HUSSAIN ABIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUBARAK BANG and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K . M . Nadeem for Petitioner.
- Imran Ahmed for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.2(ii) (viii)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.. 199--Dissolution of marriage--Constitutional jurisdiction--Questions of fact--Assessment of evidence being function of Family Court in family cases, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not enter into realm of facts.
Judgment & Decree
Constitutional Petition No.a-139 of 1986, decided on 9th December, 1986.
S.2(ii) (viii)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.. 199--Dissolution of marriage--Constitutional jurisdiction--Questions of fact--Assessment of evidence being function of Family Court in family cases, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not enter into realm of facts. K . M . Nadeem for Petitioner. Imran Ahmed for Respondents. The learned Family Court has decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 for dissolution of marriage on three grounds, viz. Khula, non- maintenance of the respondent No.1 by the petitioner and cruelty and maltreatment of the respondent No.1. The contention of Mr. K. M. Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned Judgment is not based on sufficient evidence as the respondent No.1 had failed to establish any one of the three grounds. In regard to Khula, the contention of Mr. Nadeem is that the same cannot be granted without return of the benefits which she has received from the husband and since no such benefits were returned to the petitioner, the order of the learned Family Court suffered from infirmity. 2. The argument of Mr. Nadeem would have been valid if the suit has not been decreed on two other grounds, since besides Khula, the dissolution of marriage was sought on two other grounds viz. , non-maintenance and cruelty. In this respect, the contention of Mr. Nadeem is that the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 was not sufficient to establish the said grounds. However, the argument is unacceptable as assessment of evidence was the function of the trial Court and this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot enter into the realm of facts. Apart from this no other grounds has been pleaded. I, therefore, do not find force in this petition and dismiss the same in limine. H.B.T./ Z-31/K Petition dismissed.