2000 PLP 2637 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. DOULAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2637 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Fakharun Nisa Khokhar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. DOULAN and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2637 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2637 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Fakharun Nisa Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2637 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus Mst. DOULAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
- Khan Manzoor Hussain Baloch for Respondents.
- 3. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was earlier divorced on 27-9-1991. This divorce-deed is reduced into writing, bears the signature of witnesses Sheroo son of Raja Akram and Allah Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad and the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council has not looked into this fact and unlawfully determined the maintenance allowance for respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scope-- Concurrent findings of Courts below on record could not be interfered with in Constitutional petition. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Khan Manzoor Hussain Baloch for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2000 Let it be considered as admitted case,
2. Through this writ petition, the judgment passed by the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council, dated 17-7-1998 and that of the learned Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority, Jhang is challenged.
3. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was earlier divorced on 27-9-1991. This divorce-deed is reduced into writing, bears the signature of witnesses Sheroo son of Raja Akram and Allah Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad and the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council has not looked into this fact and unlawfully determined the maintenance allowance for respondent No. 1.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that respondent has admitted the divorce, dated 17-9-1996. The learned Chairman, Arbitration Council has rightly determined the maintenance allowance favour of the respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has earlier divorced the petitioner on 27-9-1991 is concerned, I have perused the divorce-deed, it is bearing the signature of the marginal witnesses Sheroo son of Raja Akram and Allah Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad. Any divorce-deed which is reduced into writing must be communicated to the wife. Petitioner has not placed on record any proof that this divorce is duly communicated to the respondent nor he has produced any marginal witness to prove that he divorced her on 27-9-1991. He has not sent copy of the same to the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council so that the divorce be effected. The respondent categorically denied this earlier divorce. However, she submits that she was divorced'', on 17-9-1996 as nothing exist on record that' the petitioner had earlier divorced the respondent, no substance exists to interfere in the concurrent finding of learned Courts' below. This writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-287/L