P L D 1975 Karachi 747 (PLP)
MRS. ANGES JACINTHA IRENE-Petitioner Versus AUGUSTUS SIMON D'SOUZA-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1975 Karachi 747 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MRS. ANGES JACINTHA IRENE-Petitioner Versus AUGUSTUS SIMON D'SOUZA-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Karachi 747 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Karachi 747 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Karachi 747 (PLP) (MRS. ANGES JACINTHA IRENE-Petitioner Versus AUGUSTUS SIMON D'SOUZA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Naeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10-Dissolution of marriage-Charge of adultery coupled with desertion-Divorce petition filed after delay of more than four years
Mere fact of petitioner's husband returning very late from house of his alleged mistress-Cannot lead to inference of commission of adultery-No specific instances of adultery, or dates or place of its commission indicated-Letters sent from abroad where respondent resided not proved -Person to whom such letters sent although residing in Province yet not produced-Petitioner, held, failed to prove commission of adultery by respondent-Husband's refusal to give up a friendship claimed to be platonic-No proof of adultery--Inference of adultery-Not to be lightly drawn from evidence of association coupled with opportunity but from such evidence together with evidence of illicit affection or illicit familiarity.
Judgment & Decree
S. 10‑Dissolution of marriage‑Charge of adultery coupled with desertion‑Divorce petition filed after delay of more than four years
Mere fact of petitioner's husband returning very late from house of his alleged mistress‑Cannot lead to inference of commission of adultery‑No specific instances of adultery, or dates or place of its commission indicated‑Letters sent from abroad where respondent resided not proved ‑Person to whom such letters sent although residing in Province yet not produced‑Petitioner, held, failed to prove commission of adultery by respondent‑Husband's refusal to give up a friendship claimed to be platonic‑No proof of adultery-- Inference of adultery‑Not to be lightly drawn from evidence of association coupled with opportunity but from such evidence together with evidence of illicit affection or illicit familiarity. Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. XII, 3rd Edn., p. 237 ref. Woof v. Woolf 1931 P D 134 ; Getty v. Getty (1904‑1907) All E. R (Reprint), p 741; Felix Edward Geyer v. M. M. Geyer and another A I R 1949' Lah. 34 and Isac Nazirullah v. Dr. Dorothy and others P L D 1967 Lah. 7311 distinguished. Muhammad Naeem for Petitioner. Respondent (absent). Dates of hearing : 19th and 26th May 1975.