2003 PLP 1006 (YLR)
Mst. SAKINA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1006 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAKINA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1006 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1006 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1006 (YLR) (Mst. SAKINA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Habib‑Ullah Khan Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
Judgment & Decree
Habib‑Ullah Khan Chaudhry for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 31st May, 2002. Muhammad Latif and Mst. Sakina Bibi entered into contract of marriage in the year 1991. Out of the wedlock, Mst. Yasmeen Bibi was born. Unfortunately, relations between the spouses became strained which resulted into filing of a suit for maintenance by Mst. Sakina claiming maintenance for herself and for the minor. Muhammad Latif, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated. Finally, vide judgment and decree, dated 7‑1‑1996, the learned Judge Family Court dismissed the suit for conjugal rights while that for maintenance was decreed granting Rs.600 per month to the mother Mst. Sakina Bibi and Rs.300 per month to minor Yasmeen as maintenance.
2. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Judge Family Court, the respondent appealed before the learned District Judge and a learned Additional District Judge at Okara vide judgment and decree, dated 14‑10‑1996 set aside the maintenance as far as Mst. Sakina Bibi is concerned but maintained the decree of the trial Judge with regard to minor daughter.
3. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Mst. Sakina has approached this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that the learned lower Appellate Court did not advert to the grounds taken in appeal and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. Further submits that the petitioner was all the time willing to join the respondent as his wife but it was the respondent who never accepted the petitioner as his wife and shunted her out.
4. Despite service, respondent No.2 has not turned up. He is therefore, proceeded ex parte.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. A finding has been recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that Mst. Sakina, the writ petitioner has not given cogent reasons for her separate, residence. It is well‑settled law that if a wife refuses, without any lawful justification, to live with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance. This being the position, I find myself unable to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court. Resultantly, this writ petition being merit less is dismissed. Q.M.H./S‑468/L Petition dismissed.