Family Court Rules

Citation Name : 2007 CLC 281 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : Mst. KOUSAR BEGUM

Side Opponent : MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH
----R. 3(1)---Azad Jammu and Kashmir family court s Act, 1993, S.5, Sched, and
Ss.7 & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, Rr.14 & 15---Suits for
recovery of dower, dowry, maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights---Non-
signing and non-verification of plaints---Effect---Appeal to Shariat court ---Suits
were consolidated and issues were framed in the light of pleadings of parties---
When case was at the stage of final arguments, defendants filed an application
for dismissal of suits on the ground that the plaints had neither been signed nor
been verified by plaintiffs---court below dismissed suits on the ground that
plaints were found unsigned and unverified as required by R.3(1) of Azad
Jammu and Kashmir family court s Procedure rules , 1998---Validity---Cursory
survey of relevant provision of R.3(1) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir family courts
Procedure rules 1998, had shown that by using the word ''shall" it had been
made incumbent upon a plaintiff to sign and verify his/her plaint, but it
transpired from the careful perusal of said Rule that no penalty had been
provided for non-compliance of said Rule---Such direction, in circumstances had
to be interpreted as directory and not mandatory---Normal rule of construction
was that when statute did not provide for consequences of failure to comply with
the direction contained in it, such direction was to be interpreted as directory
and not mandatory---Impugned orders were set aside with the direction that
family court after affording an opportunity of hearing to parties, would proceed
further in accordance with law.
Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 10 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL
EXCISE and 2 others
Side Opponent : Professor MUHAMMAD KHAN
---Ss. 17---Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) rules , 1973, Removal from
Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), Preamble---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185(3)---Constitutional petition before High court
---Detention of vehicle by Customs officials on suspicion---Authority and duties
of public servants---Scope---Petitioner filed constitutional petition against
officials of Customs Department alleging therein that they detained his vehicle
while he was travelling with his family , on suspicion that the same was
smuggled one---High court while declaring the act of Customs Officials as
without lawful authority, directed them to pay compensation to petitioner at the
rate of Rs.1,000 per day for the period of unauthorized detention---Customs
Officials challenged the order of High court on ground that in absence of any
provision in the Customs Act, 1969, regarding payment of such compensation,
High court was not empowered to give such direction---Customs Officials
further contended that in case of suspicion as to lawful import of vehicle same
could be competently detained by them in exercise of their powers under.
Customs Act, 1969, for the purpose of necessary verification and were not liable
to any penal action---Validity---Law certainly provided protection to a public
servant for doing lawful act in discharge of his duty but no such immunity was
to be claimed by a person for committing an illegal act in his official capacity as a
public servant---Customs Authorities did not have unbridled power, under
Customs Act, 1969, to detain goods of foreign origin at any time on presumption
that the same were not brought into Pakistan in a lawful manner---In absence of
any proof that goods in possession of a person were brought into Pakistan in
violation of any law, Customs authorities and such other public functionaries
had no authority to detain such goods merely on suspicion---Petitioner had
showed documents of registration in his name to Customs Official who, having
detained the car, insisted the production of import documents for release of car---
Detention of car was an act of highhandedness which was committed through
misuse of official authority and it might constitute misconduct in terms of Civil
Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) rules , 1973 read with Removal from Service
(Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Exercise of official authority in a manner in
which a person was made victim of misuse of process of law was violative of
constitutional guarantees of rights of citizens and a person responsible for
violation of such rights was to face legal consequences---Act of custom officials
might also constitute misconduct, therefore, concerned authorities were under
legal obligation to initiate appropriate proceedings against officials involved in
the matter---Copy of Supreme court order was directed to be sent to Chairman
C.B.R. for necessary action---Petition filed by Customs Officials against order of
High court was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2007 CLC 228 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : Mst. FARHANA YASMEEN
Side Opponent : ATIF AZIZ
---S. 25-A---West Pakistan family courts rules, 1965, R.6---Transfer of family
suit---Applicant/wife's suits for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, dower
and return of dowry articles were pending in family Count at place 'K', whereas
suit filed by her husband for restitution of conjugal right against her was
pending in the court at place 'N'---Applicant had prayed that suit filed by her
husband for restitution of conjugal right in the court at place 'N' be transferred to
court at place 'K' where her suits were pending---Validity---court under proviso
to R.6 of West Pakistan family courts rules , 1965, was to consider the
inconvenience of wife involved in the suit---Husband, though presently was
residing at place 'N', but was permanently resident of place 'K'--Distance
between place 'K' and 'N' was more than 150 Km. and applicant was to travel the
distance which was journey of 2 to 4 hours---Marriage of parties was solemnized
at place 'K'; in view of inconvenience of applicant, suit filed by husband at place
'N' stood transferred to the court at place 'K' where suits of applicant (wife) were
pending adjudication.
Citation Name : 2007 CLC 14 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAJABAT KHAN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAYYAH
---S. 5 & Sched.---West Pakistan family courts rules , 1965, S.13---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ex parte proceedings, setting
aside of---Defendant's right to join subsequent proceedings---Record revealed
that none of the parties appeared on the date fixed for pre-trial reconciliation
proceedings and parties were ordered to appear in person---Husband, therefore,
could not have been proceeded against ex parte when the wife herself was not
present on the date---Continuous adjournments by Trial court for recording ex
parte evidence were without lawful authority as a defendant who had been
proceeded against ex parte was not to be precluded from joining further
proceedings.
Citation Name : 2007 PLD 14 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KALEEM KHAN
----R. 13---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.3, 5, 29 & Art.164---Azad Jammu and
Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42---Appeal to Supreme court
---Ex parte decree---Application for setting aside ex parte decree---Limitation---
Ex parte decree was passed against appellant and application. for setting aside
said ex parte decree having been concurrently dismissed by the Trial court and
Shariat court being time-barred, appellant had filed appeal before Supreme court
against order dismissing application for setting aside ex parte decree---Such
application was moved by appellant after about two years from passing of ex
parte decree, whereas R.13 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir family court s
Procedure rules , 1998, which was a special law, had provided limitation of 30
days for moving application for setting aside ex parte decree from date of
passing of decree---Limitation provided in R.13 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
family court s Procedure rules , 1998 being different from the limitation
provided in the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908, section 29 of Limitation Act,
1908,. would apply and in case of application of said section, court below had no
jurisdiction to condone limitation under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908---court
below, in circumstances had rightly dismissed application being time-barred---
Application for setting aside ex parte decree being hopelessly time-barred and
court below having no jurisdiction to condone limitation, Shariat court had
rightly dismissed appeal against judgment of the Trial court .
Citation Name : 2006 PLD 489 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : MATLOOB HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAHIDA
--Ss. 23, 17, 5 & Sched.---Muslim family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.5 &
3---West Pakistan rules under Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, Rr.7, 8, 9,
10 & 11---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908), Ss.10 & 11---Oaths Act (X of 1873), Ss.8, 9, 10 & 11---Registration of
marriage---Procedure elaborated---Jactitation of marriage---family court had
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case of jactitation of marriage
brought before it even though marriage was registered under the Muslim family
Laws Ordinance, 1961, which Ordinance essentially referred to and dealt with
valid marriages solemnized under the Islamic Sharia and not otherwise---
Principles.

Side Appellant : Mst. FARAH NAZ
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SAHIWAL
---O.XIII, R.2---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5---Filing of
petition for leave to appeal---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Wrong advice
of counsel---Wife, in the matter of recovery of dowry articles and past
maintenance, being dissatisfied from the judgment of High court , filed petition
for leave to appeal which was barred by 27 days---Plea raised by the wife was
that delay was due to wrong advice of counsel who consulted a diary published
by Punjab Bar Council---Wife produced affidavit of the counsel and also copy of
the diary relied upon---Validity---Party should not be made to suffer or
prejudiced on account of wrong advice of counsel provided it was tendered bona
fide---Supreme court , in larger interest of justice extended period for filing of
petition for leave to appeal under the provisions of O.XIII. R. 2 of Supreme court
rules , 1980.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2767 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : NADEEM AKHTAR
Side Opponent : ELECTION TRIBUNAL
---Rr. 12, 65, 75, 77 & 82---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ---
Constitutional petition---Election of Nazim and Naib Nazim---Death of returned
candidate---Declaration of respondent as returned candidate---Election
petition---Returned candidate who, after election had also taken oath of office,
died thereafter---Respondents, who remained unreturned in election filed
election petition before Election Tribunal alleging that returned) deceased
candidate had concealed his as well as his family members' assets in the
nomination papers---Election petition was allowed on the ground that returned
candidate having concealed his assets, was disqualified to participate in the
election---Election Tribunal also declared one respondent as returned since he
had secured second highest votes---Petitioners who were candidates in the
election had impugned order of Election Tribunal with a prayer that a fresh
election should be ordered and electorates of constituency be provided another
chance to elect their representatives---Counsel for petitioners had not disputed
findings of Election Tribunal that deceased returned candidate had concealed his
true assets---Under Rule 75 of Punjab Local Government Elections rules , 2005,
Election Tribunal could decide in either way mentioned in the said section---
Considering evidence and facts of petition, Election Tribunal opted to decide as
mentioned in R. 75(c) of said rules declaring election of deceased returned
candidate to be void and declaring respondent duly elected---Validity---
Discretion conferred upon Election Tribunal had been exercised by it on basis of
evidence produced by parties---High court in exercise of its constitutional
jurisdiction, could not declare whether Election Tribunal had exercised his
discretion judiciously or not---Nothing was on record to show that Election
Tribunal had acted mala fide , without jurisdiction or passed impugned order in
disregard of law or rule.

Side Appellant : WAJID ALI KHAN
Side Opponent : DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), D.C.O. OFFICE, LAHORE
---S. 9---West Pakistan rules under the Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961,
R.6-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---
Recovery of maintenance allowance--Transfer of proceedings under S.9 of
Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, from one union council to other union
council---Grievance of husband was that only that union council was competent
to grant maintenance, in which wife was residing and such matter could not be
transferred to any other union council---Validity---District Officer Revenue,
under R.6-A of rules under Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, could only
change chairman of arbitration council nominating some other member of the
same union council to be Chairman of arbitration council for that particular
case---District Officer Revenue had no jurisdiction to transfer application under
S.9 of Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, from one union council to other
union council---Decision given by union council other than the one where wife
was residing, was without lawful authority having no jurisdiction and the
transfer order passed by District Officer Revenue was also nullity in the eye of
law---High court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside both the
orders and remanded the matter to the union council where wife was residing---
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2006 PSC 803 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. ALTAF BIBI
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
--Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil Service---Allotment of official
residential quarter---Husband of petitioner who was working as a teacher under
Federal Government had died and after his death his son was appointed as Naib
Qasid---Request of son of deceased for allotment of official quarter having been
turned down, petitioner/mother of said Naib Qasid, had filed constitutional
petition---Validity---Held, in case of death of civil servant his family must part
with the possession of accommodation after expiry of prescribed limitation and
in case son or daughter of late employee was in government service then he/she
must stand in queue for allotment on his/her turn---No constitutional guarantee
was available which could force government to provide residential
accommodation to its employee---Once a civil/government servant in
occupation of a government accommodation died, after the period prescribed
under rules , his family would sever all connections with that house---
Occupation of government accommodation by the family of a deceased civil
servant, would be usurpation of the rights of other civil/government servants---
Son of deceased after death of his father was continuously, living as an
unauthorized occupant and High court would never interfere for a person who
was either a trespasser or an unauthorized occupant of government
accommodation---Petitioner had absolutely no right, title or interest in
accommodation which deceased enjoyed as a civil/government servant and
which on his death automatically went back to the pool of Estate Office to be
allotted to an other civil/government servant in accordance with his
entitlement---No interference could be made in the matter by High court in
exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Side Appellant : Mst. SHER BIBI
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
---Rr. 2.7 & 2.12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199----Constitutional
petition---Pensionary benefits, non-granting of---Absence of civil servant from
duty for 10 months prior to his death---Plea of widow of civil servant was that
during such period, he was paralyzed, which resulted in his death and that he at
his credit had 350 days of accumulated leave duly verified by authority in service
book---Validity---Department without any reasons, had not counted such leave
as qualifying service for eligibility of pension---Such absence from duty being
less than one year entitled civil servant for condonation under R.2.12 of Punjab
Civil Servants Pension rules , 1963---Death of civil servant following his
indisposition due to paralysis not denied by Department was a justifiable
explanation of absence from duty---Widow had been deprived arbitrarily of her
lawful entitlement to family pension---High court accepted constitutional
petition while directing the Department to process such case for payment of
rightful pension and other dues to widow within specified time.
Citation Name : 2006 CLC 1589 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : NASEEM AKHTAR alias LALI
Side Opponent : KHUDA BUX PECHOHO
----S. 371---Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of
1969), Ss.2(5), 11, 14, 17 & 19---West Pakistan Civil Services Pension rules , 1963,
Rr.4.6 & 4.8(c)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.104---Application for grant
of succession certificate in respect of legal monetary claims of deceased
employee---Entitlement to monetary claims---Appeal against orders---Employee
serving as Upper Divisional Clerk, died leaving behind her one son and two
daughters--After death of said employee, her mother filed application for grant
of succession certificate in respect of legal monetary claims to be paid by the
department on death of deceased employee---Mother of deceased in her
application pleaded that husband of deceased lady having divorced her in her
life time, he was not entitled to get any share out of said claim---Husband of
deceased claimed that he had never divorced the deceased lady and that she
remained his wife till her death---Application of mother of deceased was finally
dismissed holding that she could not prove that husband of deceased had
divorced deceased lady and that mother of deceased lady had no right over the
monetary legal claim payable on demise of said lady---Husband of deceased lady
thereafter filed application for grant of succession certificate in respect of
monetary claims which application was granted declaring husband of deceased
alone to be entitled to receive monetary claims of deceased lady---Validity---
Question of divorce allegedly pronounced by husband of deceased was
considered and decided up to level of High court in earlier round of litigation---
court below had rightly found that husband , had not divorced deceased lady---
Husband was found to be entitled to certain legal monetary claims---Among said
monetary claims, Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance, were to be regulated
by Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 and
under provisions of Ss.14 & 19 of said Act, those two amounts were to be paid to
a person or persons nominated by employee; in absence of any valid nomination
made by deceased, said amount were to be paid directly to members of family of
deceased for just and equitable utilization for the maintenance and benefit of all
members of her family ---Son and daughters of deceased who were major and
married, were not living with husband of deceased---Grant from Benevolent
Fund and Group Insurance Fund would be paid to the husband---General
Provident Fund which would come within preview of `Tarka' of deceased would
be inherited by all legal heirs of deceased---Pension and commutation was to be
paid to family of deceased, under provisions of R.4.6 of West Pakistan Civil
Servants Pensions rules , 1963---Husband, one son and one unmarried daughter
were entitled to said claim---Salary of 180 days of deceased would be paid to
legal heirs of deceased according to Islamic Law.
Citation Name : 2006 PLD 162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALI ASGHAR SHAH
Side Opponent : State
---Rr. 245 & 248---Application for grant of better class in jail---Applicant, who
was facing trial, applied for grant of better class in jail on ground that he was
graduate having passed B.A.---Trial court rejected said application on ground
that applicant did not have requisite social status of family and that he was
unable to show substantial income---Validity---Trial court had misdirected itself
to provisions of R.245 of the rules for the Superintendence and Management of
Prisons in Pakistan in rejecting application---Classification of under-trial
prisoners was regulated by R.248 of rules for the Superintendence and
Management of Prisons in Pakistan, whereunder there were only two classes of
prisoners; (a) better class; (b) ordinary class and according to said provisions,
undertrial prisoners who by social status, education or habit of life had been
accustomed to superior mode of living could be granted better class---Applicant,
admittedly was graduate and education should be given priority in comparison
to financial status---No rule prescribing minimum academic qualification to
qualify for better class had been specifically pointed out---Graduation was
sufficient educational/academic qualification for grant of better class---More
particularly minimum qualification for a person for being elected to Parliament
as prescribed under relevant laws had been fixed as graduation---Applicant, in
circumstances was entitled to grant of better class, if he was not otherwise
disqualified.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : PARVEEN IQBAL
----S.7(2), proviso---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.6--Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Transfer of guardianship application to the place of
residence of wife--Plea raised by the husband was that under R.6 of West
Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, suit for dissolution of marriage or dower
could only be competently filed before the family court where wife ordinarily
resided---Validity---Irrespective of suit for dissolution of marriage and dower,
under the proviso to S.7(2) of West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, suit for
maintenance, personal property, belongings of wife, custody of children and
visitation rights of parents to meet their children could also be instituted before
family court where wife resided---
Citation Name : 2005 PSC 1463 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI
Side Opponent : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
--Art. 212(3)---Supreme court rules , 1980, O.XIII, R.1---Petition for leave to
appeal---Condonation of delay---Plea of one petitioner was that he was informed
late about judgment---Plea of other petitioner was that he was mentally
disturbed and under high tension due to family circumstances, thus, could not
approach court within time---Validity---No plausible reason had been assigned
for condonation of delay---Supreme court dismissed petitions in circumstances.

Side Appellant : EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI
Side Opponent : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
---Art. 212(3)---Supreme court rules , 1980, O.XIII, R.1---Petition for leave to
appeal---Condonation of delay---Plea of one petitioner was that he was informed
late about judgment---Plea of other petitioner was that he was mentally
disturbed and under high tension due to family circumstances, thus, could not
approach court within time---Validity---No plausible reason had been assigned
for condonation of delay---Supreme court dismissed petitions in circumstances.

Side Appellant : Mst. BHAGGAY BIBI
Side Opponent : Mst. RAZIA BIBI
---S. 4---Supreme court rules , 1980, O.XXVI, R.1-Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.188---Review of Supreme court judgment---Shares of legal heirs of
predeceased son---Provision of S.4, Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961---
Object---Supreme court , in judgment under review, had decided the shares
among legal heirs of predeceased son--Petitioners sought review of the judgment
on the ground that the property of father of predeceased son was not distributed
among his legal heirs as per law of Shariah---Validity---Law of Shariah was not
overridden by S.4 of Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and consequently the
parties would not get more than their shares in the property in accordance with
law of Shariah---Widows and daughters of predeceased son would get what they
were entitled on the death of predeceased son, after opening of succession of
father of the predeceased son---Purpose of enacting S.4 in Muslim family Laws
Ordinance, 1961, was to cater the need of grandchildren to remove their
sufferings but this provision could not be interpreted in a manner affecting the
shares of other descendants in the property in accordance with law of Shariah---
Heirs of predeceased children, according to law of Shariah, would inherit what
their father or mother would have inherited during their life time on the opening
of succession---Supreme court did not find any error in the judgment under
review---Petition was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2005 YLR 795 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : Mst. DEEBA KHANAM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD JAMSHED
--Ss.25-A, 5 & Sched.---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.6, proviso---
Transfer of suit---Suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband in the
court at place 'D. I. K.' had been sought to be transferred to court at place 'B'
where suits for payment of dower, maintenance and recovery of dowry articles
filed by wife were pending adjudication---Applicant was a 'Pardanishin' lady
and was residing at lace 'B' where marriage of parties was performed---
Ordinarily, in dealing with application for transfer of cases, deciding factor
should be convenience of female--Law relating to family disputes exhibited for
greater solicitude and concern for convenience of female than for the
convenience of males which was made clear by proviso to R.6 of West Pakistan
family court s rules , 1965---Would be inconvenient for the female to travel to
place D. I. K. to defend herself there and that same questions of law and fact
were likely to arise in the suits for recovery of dower amount etc. filed by her
and suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband---Interest of justice
would demand that both suits were tried by one and the same court to avoid
conflict of judgments---High court , allowing application, transferred suit filed by
respondent from court at place 'D. I. K.' to the court at place 'B' accordingly.

Side Appellant : AFSAR KHAN
Side Opponent : TRIBUNAL F.C.R./HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR through Secretary
---S. 55-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.1(2)(c), 199 & 260(1)---Pakistan
Citizenship Act (II of 1951), Ss.3 & 4---Constitutional petition---Federally
Administered Tribal Areas---Domicile certificate granted' to petitioner was
cancelled on the basis of report of Council of Elders---Return of revision petition
by one member of Tribunal F.C.R. for want of jurisdiction, while its member did
not find time to contribute his view on such issue---Validity---Service record and
address of late father of petitioner, domicile of his mother recorded in pension
papers, domicile certificate issued to his cousins and other family member
proved that petitioner and his family resided in such areas---Pedigree-table of
petitioner showed that his family owned landed property in such area--Person
belonging to a sub-caste could not be denied right of citizenship or domicile, if he
fulfilled criteria laid down by law, rules and guidelines given by the Supreme
court ---Unambiguous certificate issued by Tribal elders of relevant caste of tribe
confirmed entitlement of petitioner to benefits and liabilities of tribe, being a
resident of such area---Petitioner and his father fell within category of citizens of
Pakistan and they would have right of domicile somewhere---If petitioner was
denied facility of certification of permanent resident in such area, then he would
be deprived of getting domicile certificate from any other authority---Denial of
such right to petitioner being a permanently domiciled in such area, would
amount to denial of a legal and Constitutional right---Such points were to be
scrutinized and adjudicated upon by a legally constituted Tribunal and revision
petition was accordingly moved before the same---Functions assigned to
Tribunal F.C.R. were purely of judicial nature---Impugned order indicating lack
of jurisdiction did not mention any reason for return of revision---High court
accepted Constitutional petition, set aside impugned order and remanded case to
Tribunal F.C.R. for disposal of revision petition.
Citation Name : 2005 PSC 886 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : Mst. MARGRATE
Side Opponent : EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER SCHOOLS AND LITERACY
DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT CHARSADDA
---Arts. 3, 11, 29 & 199---Constitutional petition---Withholding/stopping salary of
petitioner---Petitioner was appointed as sweeper in BPS-1 on regular basis and
was posted at Government Girls School--Petitioner assumed charge of her duties
after completing codal formalities and started serving as sweeper there---
Petitioner had been performing her duties to the utmost satisfaction of Principal
of school concerned and the Principal submitted bill of salary of petitioner to
District Account, Officer, but bill was returned unpassed---Salary of petitioner, in
circumstances was withheld/stopped without any lawful justification and the
lady and her family members had been deprived of their bread and butter---
Appointment of petitioner was in accordance with rules and regulations against
a regular sanctioned post which was vacant on the day she was appointed---
Petitioner, who had been performing her duties, was entitled to full emoluments
in her grade and pay scale with all admissible allowances as there was no
provision, nor concept for service without salary under the law---Performance of
duties under such circumstances by petitioner also amounted to forced labour
without payment of any emoluments which teas forbidden by Art.11 of the
Constitution---Under Art. 29 of the Constitution authorities were duty bound to
act in accordance with Principles of Policy set out in Chapter 2 Part II of the
Constitution insofar as they related to their functions---Act of authorities
stopping the salary of petitioner since her appointment was contrary to
Principles of Policy---Petitioner was denied her valuable rights of remuneration
according to her grade which was also in violation of Art.3 of the Constitution
which had cast duty on the State to eliminate all forms of exploitation and
gradual fulfilment of fundamental principles for each according to his/her
ability and work--High court allowing Constitutional petition directed the
authorities to Tear salary and medical bills of petitioner from the date of her
appointment within period of one month---Costs of Rs.10,000 were also imposed
upon the authorities.
Citation Name : 2005 MLD 579 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MASOOD PERVEZ SAJID
Side Opponent : Mst. NAWASIH FATIMA
-S.5---West Pakistan family court rules , 1965, R.6---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Non-raising of
objection to jurisdiction in pleadings---Suit for recovery of maintenance
allowance and maternity expenses was filed by wife against her husband---
Husband did not raise objection to jurisdiction of family court in his written
statement and the suit was decreed in favour of wife---Husband did not agitate
the ground of jurisdiction in memorandum of appeal before Appellate court
---Effect---Husband was not within his right to raise that objection in the contents
of Constitutional petition on the principle that the parties were bound by their
pleadings---Objection about lack of jurisdiction of court or Tribunal should have
been first raised before First Appellate court or Tribunal seized with the matter---
In case, the objection was not raised at proper time, same could not be raised in
Constitutional petition---As the husband did not raise any objection about
jurisdiction to hear the case or about maintainability of suit, he could not say
before High court exercising Constitutional jurisdiction that the family court had
no authority to hear and decide the case---Constitutional petition was not
maintainable in circumstances.
Side Appellant : Mst. AURANGZEB BIBI
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
---R.4.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--
family pension to widow---Audi alteram partem, principle of---Applicability---
Deceased civil servant was survived with two, widows and the pension was
being distributed between both of them---Petitioner was the surviving widow
who claimed full family pension after the death of other widow---Initially,
authorities issued a notification regarding providing full pension to the
petitioner but subsequently the notification was withdrawn and the authorities
declined to release the full family pension to her---Plea raised by the petitioner
was that the notification could not be withdrawn without providing opportunity
of hearing to her---Validity---Government was to pay full family pension to a
widow if she was a sole or there were two widows---Full family pension was to
be disbursed in either case from Government exchequer---If there-were two
widows, the Government was not to pay full pension to each widow separately;
it was the share of the sole widow which was being distributed inter se two
widows otherwise from Government exchequer, the same pension was being
distributed for one widow only---If one of the widows had died, the Government
had to pay full pension as it was already paying to two widows by distributing
the full into two portions---After the death of one of the widows, the other
widow was not demanding more than the amount of full family pension to
which she was entitled to get but due to her co-widow the pension was being
divided between the two---It was only a matter of correction of pension papers
and not a new payment---High court noted it with concern that price hike and
surrounding circumstances required that the widow should be accommodated as
far as possible---Government was not to lose anything as the Government was
already paying/dividing one family pension between the two widows---
Payment of whole family pension to the sole widow was not prohibited under
R.4.10 of Punjab Civil Servants (Pension) rules , 1963---Petitioner who was once
allowed to be disbursed the whole pension by the Government, could not be
deprived of same without grant of opportunity of hearing and notice to her, as a
vested right was created and was granted to her---Subsequent notification was
illegal and unlawful and the same was set aside---High court directed the
authorities to pay the whole family pension to the petitioner from the date of
death of the other widow---Petition was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2004 PLD 475 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH
Side Opponent : GHULAM RUKKIA
----S. 14---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.22---Appeal--Document or
statement worded as cross-objection filed by respondent in Appellate court
praying thereby for modification of decree ---Effect--Word "appeal" would mean
a complaint made to superior court against a decision of subordinate court with
prayer to set aside or modify same---Effect of appeal would be that cause stood
removed for purpose of deciding soundness of decision of subordinate court
---Respondent had prayed for modification of decree in such document---
Notwithstanding such nomenclature used in such document, respondent would
be deemed to have filed appeal under S.14 of West Pakistan family court s Act,
1964.

Side Appellant : ALIA PARVEEN
Side Opponent : EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE),
SHEIKHUPURA
----Ss. 2(a), 5 & Sched---Muslim family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.6, 7, 8 &
9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition----Dispute
regarding determination of legality/validity of marriage or genuineness or
otherwise of Nikahnama---Forum to determine---Dispute regarding
determination of legality/validity of the marriage or genuineness or otherwise of
Nikahnama could not be questioned before Arbitration Council---Arbitration
Council had jurisdiction only to matters mentioned in Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9 of Muslim
family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and for proceedings under those sections the
Legislature had framed rules under the Muslim family Laws Ordinance---
Arbitration Council had not the power to make unlawful anything declared
lawful by Islam nor could do vice versa---Provisions of S.6 of Muslim family
Laws Ordinance, 1961 which dealt with polygamy to protect the rights of
existing wife/wives and interest of her children, had not expressly declared the
subsequent marriage illegal---Said law had only prescribed a procedure to be
followed for subsequent marriages and punishment for its non-observance---If
permission at the time of subsequent marriage was not sought from Arbitration
Council, it would not make subsequent marriage as illegal or invalid---Disputes
arising between spouses were to be adjudicated upon by family court s and
matters/suits exclusively triable by family court s had been mentioned in
Schedule under S.5 of West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964---Disputes
mentioned in Schedule could only be decided by family court , but family court
would not question the validity of any marriage registered in accordance with
provisions of Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961 nor record any evidence
with regard thereto to be admissible before such court ---Suit in which the right
to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature "notwithstanding",
that such right may depend entirely on the decision of question as to religious
rites or ceremonies--Petitioner, in the present case, whether was legally wedded
wife of deceased or not could not be decided by Municipal Authorities but same
was the exclusive jurisdiction of a Civil court to determine the rights and
interests of parties with regard to the property of deceased---Action of Municipal
Local Authorities determining the legality/genuineness or otherwise of
Nikahnama between the parties, was without backing of legal authority---All
proceedings conducted by such authorities in the matters were declared illegal,
without lawful authority and without jurisdiction by High court in exercise of its
Constitutional jurisdiction.

Side Appellant : Mst. BUSHRA
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ----Art. 186-A---Supreme court rules , 1980, O. V,
R.3---Transfer of family case from one Province to another Province---Petition
under Art.186-A of the Constitution seeking transfer of family case pending in
family court , in Sindh) to family court in Punjab---Registrar of Supreme court
returnee: such petition being not maintainable---Validity---No provision in law
existed presently to meet such situation---Supreme court under Art. 186-A of the
Constitution was vested with power to transfer a case pending before one High
court to another High court , but not a case pending before any court
subordinate to High court of a Province to a court subordinate to High court of
another High court ---Supreme court dismissed appeal as having no merits, but
recommended to Federal and Provincial Governments to amend relevant laws
i.e. C.P.C. and law relating to family cases, for-transfer of a case in such
situation.

Side Appellant : ASHIQ HUSSAIN SAEED
Side Opponent : Mst. FARZANA CHAUDHRY
----S. 5---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.13---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Dissolution of marriage---Ex parte decree, setting
aside of---Marriage after decree---Marriage was dissolved on the basis of ex parte
decree in favour of lady who after passing period of Iddat, contracted second
marriage---As service was duly effected on the defendant/ex-husband, family
court dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the
order was maintained by Appellate court as well as by High court ---Validity---
Lady, after obtaining ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage, contracted
second marriage after passing the period of Iddat and from that wedlock a
daughter was born---Defendant/ex-husband had the knowledge of pendency of
the proceedings for dissolution of marriage and he deliberately avoided his
appearance---When the lady had already contracted a second marriage and was
living with her second husband, and the defendant/ex-husband had failed to,
substantiate his non-service in the suit for dissolution of marriage, Supreme
court did not find it a fit case for interference---Leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name : 2003 YLR 141 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : DAD REHMAN
Side Opponent : SHAKEELA
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----Rr. 6, 7(1) & 9---Guardians and Wards
Act (VIII of 1890), Ss.25 & 47(c)-- Application for custody of minor ---Appeal--
Maintainability---District Judge adjudicating family matter as family court ---Pre
requisites---Transfer of case from the court of District Judge to the court of Civil
Judge/family court ---Recording of evidence afresh---Application for custody of
minor was filed directly before District Judge and the same was decided in
favour of the mother of the minor---Plea raised by the mother of the minor was
that evidence already recorded by the District Judge was validly recorded and
the same could be read over by the Civil Judge/family court in case of transfer of
the case to that court ---Validity---District Judge had jurisdiction under R. 7(1) of
West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, to entertain, hear and try a suit triable
under West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, provided no court of Civil Judge
in any such district had been established---court of Civil Judge having been
established in the district which had the jurisdiction as provided under R.6 of
West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, was the only court competent to
entertain, hear and try the suit/application for custody of minor and not the
District court in which the application was filed--Proceedings conducted in the
present case by the District Judge were coram non judice including the order of
custody passed by the District Judge---Order of custody of minor passed by the
District Judge was illegal, void and without jurisdiction---Proceedings before the
District Judge were not curable on account of total lack of jurisdiction--Evidence
recorded by the court including the proceedings conducted by the court could
not be validated or authenticated as if recorded by a court of competent
jurisdiction nor the provisions of R.9 of West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965,
had any application in the case in hand for the reason that matter did not relate
to transfer of the case from one family court to another in which evidence was
recorded by the former court ---Evidence already recorded by the District Judge
could not be treated as having been validly recorded by such court and the
family court to which the suit might be presented having jurisdiction in the
matter could not decide the case o n such evidence after hearing the parties---
Order of custody passed by the District Judge was set aside by the High court
and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for entrusting the same to the
court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Judge/family court ---Appeal was
allowed accordingly.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN
Side Opponent : KHIZER HAYAT
----S. 5 (2)---West Pakistan rules under Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961,
R.7(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Grant
of licence to act as Nikah Registrar---Revocation of said licence---On a complaint
that respondent Nikah Registrar had committed certain irregularities in
performing his duties as Nikah Registrar, an inquiry was held by Secretary,
Union Council after notice to the Nikah Registrar but he did not appear--Inquiry
Officer conducted ex parte inquiry and submitted his report to the Administrator
of Union Council and on said report licence was cancelled by Administrator and
same was issued in favour of petitioner/complainant without issuing any notice
to the previous Nikah- Registrar (the respondent)---Said order of the.
Administrator was set aside by the District Collector on the ground that
respondent was condemned unheard by the Administrator---Petitioner had
contended that as no remedy of appeal or revision was provided under the
Ordinance and the rules , revision filed by respondent before District Collector
against cancellation of licence, was not maintainable---Contention of petitioner
had merit, but as the Administrator while canceling licence had not issued any
notice to the respondent and condemned him unheard his order was without
lawful authority---Interference of High court , however, in circumstances, would
result in restoring an illegal order---Case was essentially of judicial restraint
despite defect in jurisdiction of District Collector---District Collector while
accepting revision of respondent set aside order of Administrator but did not
issue consequential directions--High court though did not incline to exercise its
discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction against revisional order of District
Collector, but directed that Administrator would decide the matter afresh after
hearing the concerned parties.

Side Appellant : MAZHAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : NAZIM UNION COUNCIL, BHALWAL
----S.5---West Pakistan rules under the Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961,
R.7-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional petition---
Registration of marriage, seeking cancellation of ---Validity-- No provisions
existed under the Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and rules to cancel
registration on marriage --- Nazim of concerned Union Council had no
jurisdiction to cancel the same---Legal sanctity was attached to such certificate
under R.7 of the rules ---Solemnization of marriage in Pakistan was not disputed
by spouses, which was a valid marriage---Marriage Certificate had not been
challenged by any party, thus, there was no need to correct the same---High
court disposed of Constitutional petition accordingly.

Side Appellant : AKHTAR ZAMAN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----R.12---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), Ss.5 & Sched.---Ex parte decree for recovery of maintenance,
setting aside of---family court granted five adjournments for filing written
statement, whereafter last opportunity was provided on request of defendant's
counsel---Neither defendant nor his counsel appeared on the date fixed---family
court proceeded ex parte against defendant and after recording plaintiff's
evidence decreed the suit--Contention of defendant was that decree was void as
having been passed without affording him opportunity of hearing ---Validity--
Opportunity of being heard was the right of defendant---Such opportunity could
not be deemed not to have been provided to defendant, as in such circumstances.
family court was left with no option, but to proceed ex parte against the
delinquent.
Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1625 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Syed SAKHAWAT ALI SHAH
Side Opponent : Mst. SHABANA SHAH
----S.5 & Sched.---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25---West Pakistan
family court s rules , 1965, R.6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---
Constitutional petition---Custody of minor---Territorial jurisdiction of family
court ---Mother after obtaining custody of a suckling baby at Karachi by filing
habeas corpus petition filed case for custody of second child---family court at
Karachi returned the case for want of jurisdiction as minor by that time was
residing with grandmother at Kohat--Appellate court set aside such order---
Validity---Marriage of parties was solemnized at Karachi, where they were still
residing--Both children were born at Karachi, where they were available, when
habeas corpus petition was filed---Second minor had been shifted to Kohat
thereafter---Shifting of minor by father to Kohat in circumstances would not
divest court s at Karachi of its powers to entertain and deal with the matter---
Jurisdiction in such circumstances would lie with family court at Karachi---High
court dismissed Constitutional petition.
Citation Name : 2003 PTD 602 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ----S.93(2)---Income Tax rules , 1982, R.159---
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000),
S.9--Appointment of Receiver---Conduct of Receiver---Realization of dues from
the lady members of the assessee in his absence by harassment--Subsequently
appeal of the assessee was allowed and order of Assessing Officer was vacated
with the direction to accept nil income as declared--Validity---Important and
relevant contention of the assessee was about the behaviour of the "Receiver" in
realizing the dues from the lady members of the assessee in his absence---
Department had not controverted the allegation made against the "Receiver" and
admitted recovery of Rs.20,000 by him---"Receiver" was considered to be an
officer of the court and he should not exceed the normal limits of court esy and
respect which demands from such office---"Receiver" should not have realized
the dues from the family members particularly as the property had been under
his control as there was no apprehension of its being transferred or damaged---
At best he'could have demanded from the assessee himself and not to realize
from his family members--Conduct of the "Receiver" in this regard was beyond
his authority and was depreciated---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that
(i) the amount recovered as tax if not refunded be refunded to the complainant
within 30 days; (ii) the Central Board of Revenue to issue instructions to
Commissioner of Income-tax to maintain a list of persons of integrity for
appointment of "Receivers" according to serial number.

Side Appellant : Maj. (Rtd.).ISHTIAQ MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : Mst. ZAREEN GUL
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S. 9---West Pakistan rules under the
Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art
199---Constitutional petition---Application for maintenance---Divorce had taken
place between the parties and both the parties had remarried---All the three
children from the wedlock were brought up by the father who had retired from
service---Nothing was available on record to show the reasonable and cogent
proof of the income of the man who had been in critical financial position for
sometimes and spouses during their married life had to sell some jewellery to
overcome the financial crisis---Chairman, Arbitration Council had not asked the
parties questions to determine their means of income and fixed the maintenance
allowance---Validity---Chairman of the Arbitration Council committed a glaring
legal error which was apparent in his order---High court being the court of
equity and natural justice had to take note of illegalities committed by the
Tribunal below and rectify the same beyond technicalities.

Side Appellant : Dr. ZAFER AHMAD
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAMSA
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----Ss. 5, 9(5)(a) & Sched.---West Pakistan
Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance---Ex parte
decrees, setting aside of---Defendant was. declared ex parte during proceedings
of suits---family court passed ex parte decrees after dismissing defendant's
applications for setting aside ex parte order on the ground that ex pane order
had already been announced---Appellate court dismissed defendant's appeals
being time-barred---Validity---Defendant in his affidavit filed in support of his
application under R.13 of West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965 had denied
service of summons upon him---Signature of defendant on said affidavit was
totally different from that on copy of summons produced by bailiff---Post
through courier service had been delivered to someone else--Inquiry in the
matter was reasonably required in order to arrive at a legitimate conclusion that
summons had been duly served---family court had dismissed application for
setting aside ex parte order simply on the ground that ex parte order had already
been announced---Said reason was no. reason in the eye of law---Such a bald
observation clearly negated the provisions of S.9(5)(a) of the West Pakistan
family court s Act, 1964---Such a slipshod and rough. order was to be refrained
from while performing duty of judicial dispensation---family court was required
to pass an order in express terms as to whether defendant was able to assign
good cause for his previous nonappearance or not---family court was not
supposed to overlook the provision of law and pass an arbitrary order---High
court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the court s below and
remanded the cases to family court for proceeding afresh after allowing
defendant to file written statement and contest the suits on merits.

Side Appellant : Dr. ZAFER AHMAD
Side Opponent : Mst. SHAMSA
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----Ss. 5, 9(5)(a) & Sched.---West Pakistan
Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance---Ex parte
decrees, setting aside of---Defendant was. declared ex parte during proceedings
of suits---family court passed ex parte decrees after dismissing defendant's
applications for setting aside ex parte order on the ground that ex pane order
had already been announced---Appellate court dismissed defendant's appeals
being time-barred---Validity---Defendant in his affidavit filed in support of his
application under R.13 of West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965 had denied
service of summons upon him---Signature of defendant on said affidavit was
totally different from that on copy of summons produced by bailiff---Post
through courier service had been delivered to someone else--Inquiry in the
matter was reasonably required in order to arrive at a legitimate conclusion that
summons had been duly served---family court had dismissed application for
setting aside ex parte order simply on the ground that ex parte order had already
been announced---Said reason was no. reason in the eye of law---Such a bald
observation clearly negated the provisions of S.9(5)(a) of the West Pakistan
family court s Act, 1964---Such a slipshod and rough. order was to be refrained
from while performing duty of judicial dispensation---family court was required
to pass an order in express terms as to whether defendant was able to assign
good cause for his previous nonappearance or not---family court was not
supposed to overlook the provision of law and pass an arbitrary order---High
court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the court s below and
remanded the cases to family court for proceeding afresh after allowing
defendant to file written statement and contest the suits on merits.

Side Appellant : HASHAM SADARUDDIN GANGJI
Side Opponent : 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (SOUTH), KARACHI
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----R. 5---Dissolution of Muslim Marriages
Act (VIII of 1939), S.2--Muslim family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.1(2) &
5---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss.5, 14 & Sched.---Civil
Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Return of plaint
for its presentation before competent court --Parties were married at Karachi,
where their Nikahnama was registered--Parties, after going to Canada entered
into another Nikah to satisfy the requirements of law of Canada---Judicial
separation was obtained at Canada through concerned Supreme court ---family
court returned the plaint to wife---Appellate court set aside said order and
remanded the case for its decision after recording evidence of the parties---
Contention of husband was that order of Appellate court was not legal as .both
the parties were Canadian nationals---Validity---Husband, despite raising such
plea had not shown that parties had lost their Pakistani citizenship--Registration
of Nikahnama as well as residence of wife at Karachi was not disputed by
husband nor said marriage had legally been dissolved--Second Nikah at Canada
was an exercise in futility as second Nikah over and above an existing valid
Nikah was not recognized in Islam nor its judicial separation---Wife was justified
in instituting suit at Karachi--Impugned order was not suffering from any legal
infirmity'or jurisdictional error---High court dismissed Constitutional petition in
limine.
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1375 BAR-COUNCIL-TRIBUNAL-NWFP

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IRSHAD
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE HAIDER QURESHI
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 ---S.43---Pakistan Legal
Practitioners and Bar Councils rules , 1976; R.173---Professional misconduct---
Issuance of legal notice intimating order of court ---- Allegation against the
respondent wail that he being counsel against the complainant, intimated the
Immigration Authorities and also informed the foreign embassy about the order
of family court whereby, the complainant was restrained from leaving the
country during the proceedings---Validity---Respondent had only communicated
the order passed by the family court , who being officer of the court was well
within his right to send notice and application on behalf of and under the
instruction of his clients---Only embargo placed on the acts of an Advocate under
R.173 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils rules , 1976, was that he could
not communicate with nor could appear before a public .officer without first
disclosing his identity as an Advocate---Respondent in the present case,'had duly
disclosed his identity as an Advocate---Notice was on the letter head pad of the
respondent and it was specifically mentioned that the communication of the
order of the family court to the concerned officers was an act purely under the
instructions of his client---Tribunal of the Bar Council concluded that no case of
professional misconduct was made out against the respondent---Complainant
was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2002 YLR 1575 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : KHAN MUHAMMAD KHAN
Side Opponent : CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD JAMMU AND
KASHMIR
----Ss. 18, 25 & 43---Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956) [as adapted in
Azad Jammu and Kashmir], Ss.6, 7 & 23--Pakistan Rehabilitation rules , 1951 [as
adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir], R.10(2)---Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.44 & 42--Evacuee land---Respondents
were allotted land in year 1961 as refugees---Appellant in year 1968 took forcible
possession of suit-land by launching attack upon respondents killing four
persons from their family --Appellant thereafter applied for allotment of suit-
land on ground of being old tenant and local destitute---Assistant Rehabilitation
Commissioner allotted land to appellant--Rehabilitation Commissioner
dismissed revision petition on the ground that one of allottees-respondents had
surrendered his allotment rights in suit-land in favour of appellant---Custodian
cancelled allotment order except such surrendered share---High court dismissed
Constitutional petition filed by appellant---Validity---Land could not be allotted
to a new allottee without cancelling previous order of allotment in accordance
with law---Allotment of respondents by lapse of time had attained finality---Suit-
land had been cancelled at the back of respondents--Rehabilitation
Commissioner was obliged under law to provide right of hearing to respondents
before cancelling their allotment---No such notice had been issued to
respondents, thus, whole exercise was illegal and liable to be ignored---
Custodian had got powers to pass an appropriate order in respect of any
allotment, which in his wisdom was violative of law---Custodian in the light of
such facts was justified in law in setting aside order of Rehabilitation
Commissioner--Presumption would be that while setting aside allotment order
secured by appellant, Custodian had impliedly exercised suo motu revisional
powers in the light of peculiar facts of present case---High court was justified in
laid in refusing to grant discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction in favour of
appellant for want of proof in support of his claim being an old tenant and local
destitute--Supreme court dismissed the appeal being devoid of any force.
Citation Name : 2001 YLR 175 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : DILSHAD BANO
Side Opponent : IMTIAZ HUSSAIN
Azad Jammu and Kashmir family court s Act 1993 ----S. 14---Azad Jammu and
Kashmir family court s Procedure rules , 1998, R.22--Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
S.12(2)--Appeal---Limitation---Exclusion of time spent in obtaining copy of
judgment and decree appealed against---Appeal which was to be filed within
thirty days was filed after expiry of said period---Provisions of S.12(2) of
Limitation Act, 1908 whereby time spent in obtaining copy of judgment and
decree appealed against was excluded in computing the period of limitation,
being applicable to the case, appeal was not time-barred as time spent by
appellant in obtaining the copies of judgment and decree appealed against had to
be excluded in computing period of limitation for filing appeal.

Side Appellant : ANNE ZAHRA
Side Opponent : TAHIR ALI KHILJI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S.5 & Sched.---Guardians and Wards Act
(VIII of 1890), S.25---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.6---Custody of
minor--Territorial jurisdiction, determination of---Provisions of West Pakistan
family court s Act, 1964, has overriding effect and question of territorial
jurisdiction is to be decided under its provisions and rules framed thereunder---
Provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has no relevancy in deciding
territorial jurisdiction in the matter relating to custody of minor.

Side Appellant : BNA
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AZAM, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, LAHORE
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S.17---Miscellaneous application fled
without affidavit ---Effect---No specific mode to file such application having
been' prescribed under the West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, or the rules
framed thereunder---family court is free to entertain application without
verification or even without supporting affidavit ---To decide such application
the family court may proceed to record evidence of the parties and may call
upon a party to submit affidavit to substantiate his claim or may otherwise
accept the application to secure .the ends of justice.

Side Appellant : SYED ZIA UL HASSAN GILANI
Side Opponent : MIAN KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 7 OTHERS
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S. 5---West Pakistan family court s rules
, 1965, R.5---Civil Procedure Codg (V of 1908), S.20---family court, territorial
jurisdiction of---Filing of suit in wrong court ---Effect---Territorial jurisdiction of
family court was governed by S.20, C.P.C.---Where the suit was filed in a wrong
court , under R. 5 of family court rules , 1965, the plaint would be returned to the
plaintiff.

Side Appellant : MAQSOOD AHMAD
Side Opponent : JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BUREWALA
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S. 5, Sched. Ss. 10 & 17---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of
maintenance allowance--Striking off defence for . non-filing of written
statement---Defence of defendant was struck off for non-filing of his written
statement ---Validity---Provisions of West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 or
rules framed thereunder having nowhere authorised family court to strike off
defence of defendant on non-filing of his written statement, order striking off
defence of defendant was declared to be illegal by the High court .
Side Appellant : INHAM KHAN
Side Opponent : ROBINA GUL
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----Ss.-5, Sched. & 9(6)---West Pakistan
family court s rules , 1965, R.13--Constitiution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---
Constitutional petition---Suit for jactitation of marriage---Ex parte decree, setting
aside of---Suit having been decreed ex parte, defendant/ petitioner filed
application for setting aside said decree, but such application was concurrently
dismissed by court s below or, ground that application having been filed after
two and half months from passing of decree, was barred by time---
Defendant/petitioner who was involved in a murder case, was confined in jail
and .summons through registered post were despatched only one day before the
date of hearing of case which could not reach the petitioner in time---Service of
petitioner, in circumstances, was not proper---Application for setting aside ex
parte decree had to be made "within reasonable" time as provided in S.9(c) of
West Pakistan family court s Act. 1964 and no fixed time of limitation had been
prescribed---Rule 13, West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, providing thirty
days for setting aside ex pane decree, being not in'consonance with positive
provision of the Act whereunder application for setting aside ex parte decree
could be filed within reasonable time, would not prevail over the provisions of
said Act---Considering that petitioner was confined in jail and summons having
not been served on him properly, his application for setting aside decree filed
through his attorney was within reasonable time---High court set aside
concurrent judgments of court s below in exercise of its Constitutional
jurisdiction, remanded case for deciding the application for setting aside ex parte
decree afresh, within specified period.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
Side Opponent : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
OF UNION COUNCILS, BAHAWALPUR
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 5. 5(2)---West Pakistan rules under Muslim
family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition-.--Grant of licence to Nikah Registrar---Cancellation---
Authority, after thorough inquiry appointed petitioner as Nikah Registrar of the
area concerned and granted him licence in that respect---Authority only after 13
days, cancelled the licence granted to petitioner without any reason and without
recording any finding about contravention of any condition of licence on part of
petitioner---Licence of Nikah Registrar granted to the petitioner was permanent
and could be revoked or cancelled only for contravention of any of conditions of
licence as provided under R.7(3), West Pakistan rules under Muslim family
Laws Ordinance, 1961---In absence of any finding about contravention of any of
the conditions of licence, order cancelling licence granted to petitioner, passed
without hearing the petitioner was set aside by High court being illegal and
passed without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1999 YLR 2531 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : BUSHRA BANO
Side Opponent : SHABBIR AHMED
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat court (Procedure) rules 1982 ---R.43 --Appeal
before Shariat court --Limitation--- Delay--- Condonation--- Appeal against
judgment and decree of family court was filed before Shariat court after one and
half months from recording of judgment and decree of family court ---Appellant
filed application to obtain copies of judgment of family court after twelve days
from recording of judgment and copy of judgment was delivered to appellant
after one month from filing application to obtain copy of judgment---If period for
obtaining cope of judgment was excluded, appeal filed by appellant was in
time---Period which was to be excluded for purpose of limitation for filing
appeal would be reckoned from date of application for obtaining copy of
judgment because appellant could not be made to suffer for laches and action of
any of department connected with administration of justice--Appellant was
entitled to extension of the period from date of making of application up to date
of delivery of copy of judgment of family court .

Side Appellant : TAUCLIR AHMED SHAH
Side Opponent : YASMEEN AKHTAR
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----Ss. 8 & 10---West Pakistan family court
s Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965,
R.22(3)---Suit for dissolution of marriage and dower---Appeal---Competency---
Suit for dissolution of marriage and dower by wife having been decreed by
family court , husband filed appeal against said judgment and decree by filing
certified copy of decree for dower only---Admissibility---Filing of certified copies
of all decrees in consolidated litigation at the time of preferring a single appeal,
was an essential requirement of law which could not be dispensed with by
Appellate court ---Grounds of appeal had shown that only challenge made by
husband was in respect of decree passed against him in suit for recovery of
dower and he did not challenge decree of dissolution of marriage--Such appeal
was not competent, in circumstances.

Side Appellant : MAHPARA
Side Opponent : S. ARSHAD MAHMOOD
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 R. 13---Limitation to file application for
setting aside ex parte decree starts from date of judgment and decree of
dissolution of marriage---Ex pane---Notice to Chairman, Arbitration Council by
petitioner for getting certificate of effectiveness of divorce---Respondent husband
appeared before Chairman, Arbitration Council and expressly gave consent to
issue a certificate of effectiveness of divorce which was issued by the
Chairman---Petitioner got remarried to some other person and in that wedlock a
child was born---Ex parte decree was set aside by Trial court ---Respondent,
husband who had knowledge of proceedings and had given consent to
Chairman, Arbitration Council to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce filed
application for setting aside ex parte decree thereafter---Limitation---Period of
limitation to set aside ex parte decree starts from date of judgment and decree or
from date of knowledge---Application for setting aside the ex parte decree was
dismissed being time-barred in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1998 PSC 1104 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI
Side Opponent : SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
ISLAMABAD
Civil Services ----Transfer---Joining period---Civil servant who was posted in the
Embassy of Pakistan in a foreign country was relieved from duty on 1-8-1993 to
report back to Islamabad---Mission of Pakistan in the foreign country after
having purchased the ticket on 28-7-1993 did not inform the civil servant about
the date of his departure available in the only Airline which operated between
the foreign country and Islamabad during the month of August, 1993 and it was
only on 30-8-1993 that seats could be arranged for the civil servant and his
family through the airline---Homeward journey of the civil servant, therefore,
commenced from foreign country on 30-8-1993 and as he was entitled to six days
joining time under the rules he rightly reported for duty at Islamabad on 5-9-
1993---Office order of the Ministry treating the period from 2-8-1993 to 2-9-1993
as leave without pay due to unauthorised absence of the civil servant was an
arbitrary exercise of powers by the functionaries---Manner in which the Mission
abroad treated a regular employee of foreign office while posted in a foreign
country was deprecated by Supreme court .

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI
Side Opponent : SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF FORIGN AFFAIRS
Civil Services ----Transfer---Joining period---Civil servant who was posted in the
Embassy of Pakistan in a foreign country was relieved from duty on 1-8-1993 to
report back to Islamabad---Mission of Pakistan in the foreign country, after
having purchased the ticket on 28-7-1993, did not inform the civil servant about
the date of his departure from the foreign country---No seats were admittedly
available in the only Airline which operated between the foreign country and
Islamabad during the month of August, 1993 and it was only on 30-8-1993 that
seats could be arranged for the civil servant and his family through the airline--
Homeward journey of the civil servant, therefore, commenced from foreign
country on 30-8-1993 and as he was entitled to six days joining time under the
rules he rightly reported for duty at Islamabad on 5-9-1993---Office order of the
Ministry treating the period from 2-8-1993 to 2-9-1993 as leave without pay due
to unauthorised absence of the civil servant was an arbitrary exercise of powers
by the functionaries---Manner in which the Mission abroad treated a regular
employee of foreign office while posted in a foreign country, was deprecated by
Supreme court .

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARIF
Side Opponent : BAHADUR KHAN
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils rules 1976 R. 173---Soldiers Litigation Act
(IV of 1925), Ss. 7 & 12---Professional misconduct---On filing suit for maintenance
and custody of children by plaintiff/wife, family court issued summons against
defendant husband who was serving in Army---Brother of defendant husband
wrote a letter to Judge family court on behalf of Commanding Officer that
defendant being committed on operational military exercise, was not in a
position to attend court on date fixed for appearance with a request that case be
adjourned to some other date--Advocate representing plaintiff wife obtained a
copy of letter (produced by brother of defendant to family court ) and addressed
a letter to complainant/brother of defendant seeking verification of that letter--
Complainant/brother of defendant had alleged in complaint filed before N.-
W.F.P. Bar Council that Advocate was not authorised to correspond directly with
Army Personnel contending that it was violation of provision of Ss.7 & 12 of
Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925 and was against provisions of Legal Practitioners
and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder--Complainant/brother
of defendant had prayed that Advocate by doing so having committed
professional misconduct, suitable action should be taken against him under
relevant law---Held, only embargo placed on acts of an Advocate under 8.173 of
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils rules , 1976 was that he could not
communicate with nor could appear before a Public Officer without first
disclosing his identity as an Advocate---Advocate having disclosed his identity
as an Advocate/counsel for plaintiff wife, had not committed any professional
misconduct as alleged by complainant/brother of defendant---Respondent
Advocate had categorically written that he was seeking the verification of alleged
letter, being counsel for plaintiff-wife, case was not hit by 8.173 of Legal
Practitioners and Bar Councils rules , 1976.
Citation Name : 1998 PCRLJ 1972 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD EJAZ
Side Opponent : STATE
Pakistan Penal Code ----Ss. 182, 324, 506, 148 & 149---Police rules , 1934, 8.24.7---
Cancellation of case---Action against complainant---Complainant/respondent
who got the case registered against accused/appellant under Ss.324, 506, 148 &
149, P.P.C. had produced four witnesses before Investigating Officer who
supported case of complainant---Parties appeared before D.S.P. and complainant
very clearly stated that parties being closely related, elders of family had patched
up differences and matter had been compounded and that
complainant/respondent did not want to pursue case again accused/appellant---
Despite such statement D.S.P. in case diary observed that case against
accused/appellant according to his investigation was false and D.S.P. directed
S.H.O. to cancel case against accused/appellant and to take action against
complainant/respondent under S.182, P.P.C.---S.H.O. in the light direction of
D.S.P. prepared cancellation report and prepared Kalandra against
complainant/respondent---Case got registered by complainant against
accused/appellant was cancelled by S.H.O. on direction of D.S.P. without any
order of competent court in that respect as required by law---In absence of order
of competent court , case against accused could not be deemed to have been
cancelled nor in absence of any such order further proceedings against
complainant under S.182, P.P.C. could be held to be maintainable---Submission
of Kalandra against complainant and trial against him under S.182, P.P.C. on
basis thereof, were held to be without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.

Side Appellant : KHALID JAVAID
Side Opponent : TAHIRA YASMEEN
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S. 18---West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965, RA(l) --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constiutional petition---
Appearance in family -court through agent---Effect---Provision of S. 18, West
Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 being enabling provision, empowered court to
dispense with legal requirement as to appearance of any person and enable such
person to be represented through authorised agent---Provision of S.18 of the Act,
therefore, would be attracted only if person was required by any provision of
family court s Act to appear before the court , which, however, could permit
Pardanashin lady (plaintiff) to appear through duly authorised agent---Use of
word "person" instead of "party" in S.18 of the Act, could not be stretched to
include plaintiff---Order of Appellate Forum in allowing female plaintiff
(Pardanashin) through specially constituted attorney to appear in court was not
open to interference in circumstances.

Side Appellant : AFTAB IQBAL JANJUA
Side Opponent : MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES
LTD., LAHORE
Sui Northren Gas Pipelines limited for Subordinate Staff Service rules ---- R. 67---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199---Constitutional petition---Restriction
placed on medical attendant for supply of medicines to employees of company
except in cases of emergency---Validity---Rule 67 of Service rules of Sui Northern
Gas Pipelines (Limited) for Subordinate Staff showed that medicines would
normally be supplied by company doctor, but there was also provision in the
rules that those be procured from market, by employee who would purchase
them against cash payment which amount would be reimbursed to employee
subject to respondent's doctor countersigning cash memos, and accompanied by
prescription---Impugned office memo. (placing restriction on supply of
medicine) also showed that medicines would be provided to employees and
entitled family members in cases of emergency but in other cases prescription for
purchase of medicines would be issued which would be reimbursed---No
conflicting material, thus, was found between R. 67 of Service rules and
impugned memo. so as to call for interference by court in its extraordinary
Constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1998 MLD 1813 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : FURQANA SHIBLI
Side Opponent : IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI CENTRAL
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 ----Ss.9 & 25---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), S.7---West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, Rr.4,5, 6 & 7---
Application for custody of minor---Territorial jurisdiction of court ---Minor
whose custody was sought by father from mother of minor resided in territorial
jurisdiction of family court before which application for custody of minor was
transferred---Mother who was having custody of minor also resided in territorial
jurisdiction of said family court and refusal to hand over custody of minor also
took place within territorial jurisdiction of that family court wherein application
for custody of minor was pending---Application of mother of minor with regard
to objection of territorial jurisdiction of family court , was rightly dismissed.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MUNAF
Side Opponent : IXTH CIVIL AND FAMILY JUDGE (EAST), KARACHI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S. 8---West Pakistan family court s rules
, 1965, R. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---
New plea--Admissibility---Petitioner taking new ground for the first time in
Constitutional petition which he had not taken in court below---Effect---
Petitioner for the first time agitating in Constitutional petition that rule laid
down in S. 8(a)(i), West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 had been violated by
Trial court by not sending summons to him by registered post acknowledgement
due---Petitioner had not taken such ground in application under R. 13, West
Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, about setting aside ex parte decree passed
against him--Such fresh plea not raised in lower forum, could not be raised in
Constitutional petition.

Side Appellant : SHAMIM RIZWAN
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Lahore Development Authority Act 1975 ----S. 10---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Delegation of power to Chief Minister
by Director-General of Authority---Chief Minister exercising those powers to
order commercialization of residential premises---Legality---Delegation of such
powers by Director-General to Chief Minister was against concept of
delegation---Superior Authority alone could allow some of its powers or
authority to be exercised by its subordinate and not vice versa, therefore, there
could not be delegation of powers by Director General of Authority to Chief
Minister as Chairman of the Authority---Such delegation of powers by Director-
General of Authority to Chief Minister, besides being mala fide was ultra sires of
law said rules ---Chief Minister had no power to order commercialization of
residential premises under arty of the regulations---Competency of Director-
General to grant relaxation being against provisions of Regulations, distinction
would nave to be drawn by court s between rectifiable, carable violations and
others- Illegal conversion of residential premises into commercial use would
deprive Lahore Development Authority of handsome amount* which was
payable as conversion charges and would also impair peaceful enjoyment of
members of petitioners family ---Such order was, thus, illegal, without
jurisdiction and mala fide which was set aside in circumstances.

Side Appellant : TEHMINA KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD JEHANZEB KHAN BHARWANA
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 S. 4-A(1)---High court (Lahore) rules and Orders,
Vol. II, Chap. 2, Part 1, R.1---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964),
S.25-A---court s competent to entertain guardian matters---Notifications issued
by High court in terms of S.4-A(1), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and under
High court rules and Orders---Combined effect---High court in exercise of
powers under S.4-A(1), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, had authorised District
Judges to transfer proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to Civil
Judges First Class and they could not nominate Civil Judge at sub-divisional
level or otherwise to act as Guardian Judges---Only three sets of court s (Senior
Civil Judge, Civil Judge First Class specifically nominated by High court and
Civil Judges 1st Class empowered by District Judges) could legally hear and
decide guardian matters and none else.

Side Appellant : TEHMINA KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD JEHANZEB KHAN BHARWANA
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S. 4-A(1)---High court (Lahore) rules and
Orders, Vol. II, Chap. 2, Part 1, R.1---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of
1964), S.25-A---court s competent to entertain guardian matters---Notifications
issued by High court in terms of S.4-A(1), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and
under High court rules and Orders---Combined effect---High court in exercise of
powers under S.4-A(1), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, had authorised District
Judges to transfer proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to Civil
Judges First Class and they could not nominate Civil Judge at sub-divisional
level or otherwise to act as Guardian Judges---Only three sets of court s (Senior
Civil Judge, Civil Judge First Class specifically nominated by High court and
Civil Judges 1st Class empowered by District Judges) could legally hear and
decide guardian matters and none else.

Side Appellant : IRSHAD MAI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 R.6---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---
Constitutional petition---Refusal to exercise jurisdiction on wrong assumption---
Effect---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Dismissal of suit for lack of territorial
jurisdiction---Words "ordinarily resides", as used in R.6, West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965---Connotation---Proviso to R.6, West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965, enables estranged wife to file suit for dissolution of marriage within
local limits of which she ordinarily resides---Petitioner's husband and parents
were resident of different place while she was residing at another place earning
her own livelihood, thus, ordinarily residing at a place different from where her
parents and husband resided---Words "ordinarily resides" must be construed in
the context of estranged wife who had left her husband's abode and had sought
residence at any other place of her own choice; such place of her choice would
answer to the concept "ordinarily resides "---Petitioner ordinarily residing at a
place of her choice, after separation from her husband, was, thus, competent to
bring suit for dissolution of marriage in the court of that place--High court
ordinarily would not go into question of fact in exercise of its Constitutional
jurisdiction but where findings of court s below on the face of record appeared to
be perverse or based on no evidence (as in petitioner's case) High court even in
Constitutional jurisdiction could take different view---Both court s below having
unlawfully refused to exercise their jurisdiction on wrong assumption that they
did not have such jurisdiction, their judgments were set aside and case was
remanded to Trial court for decision on merits within specified period.

Side Appellant : ABDUL QADEER MANSOORI
Side Opponent : NASEEMA BANO
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----R.6---Suit ordinarily is to be filed where
the defendant resides ---Exception--"Ordinary"---Meanings.
Citation Name : 1996 PLD 64 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : AMJAD HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : SHAGUFTA
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 S. 5---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of
1964), S. 5--Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 & 49---Consitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of immovable property by
husband to wife through Nikahnama which had not been registered under
Registration Act, 1908---Validity---Nikah of parties was in the form prescribed
under Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder
and same was registered with the Nikah Registrar in accordance with prescribed
mode and thus, Nikahnama had a different status than any other unregistered
document through which some immovable property had purportedly been
transferred--Nikahnama was a public document executed by a Public Officer,
certified copy whereof, was sufficient for proof of its contents unless its rebuttal
was effected through cogent evidence---Dower deed by which immovable
property was purported to be transferred was, thus, not considered to be
compulsorily registrable under Registration Act, 1908, and wife was entitled to
claim immovable property on basis of Nikahnama wherein same was
incorporated in lieu of dower.

Side Appellant : AMJAD HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : SHAGUFTA
Registration Act 1908 S. 5---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), S.
5--Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 & 49---Consitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of immovable property by husband
to wife through Nikahnama which had not been registered under Registration
Act, 1908---Validity---Nikah of parties was in the form prescribed under Muslim
family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder and same was
registered with the Nikah Registrar in accordance with prescribed mode and
thus, Nikahnama had a different status than any other unregistered document
through which some immovable property had purportedly been transferred--
Nikahnama was a public document executed by a Public Officer, certified copy
whereof, was sufficient for proof of its contents unless its rebuttal was effected
through cogent evidence---Dower deed by which immovable property was
purported to be transferred was, thus, not considered to be compulsorily
registrable under Registration Act, 1908, and wife was entitled to claim
immovable property on basis of Nikahnama wherein same was incorporated in
lieu of dower.

Side Appellant : RAFIQ AHMAD
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, KHANEWAI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S. 5 & Sched.---West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965, R. 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional
petition---Suit for jactitation of marriage decreed in favour of plaintiff---
Validity---Defendant's main plea in Constitutional petition was on the words
"ordinarily resides" as used in R. 6, West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965---
Defendant claimed that plaintiff was resident of an area which was not within
jurisdiction of court from which she had obtained decree---Plaintiff in her plaint
as also in her evidence had stated that because of fear that she might be
kidnapped by defendant, her parents had shifted to the area which was within
jurisdiction of the court where she had instituted suit and the same was
decreed---Expression "ordinarily resides" means a place where wife comes to
stay of her own choice; it does not necessarily mean that residence should be
long in point of time, and thus residence for a few days was enough---court has
to see the place where female has chosen to stay regardless of whether she was
permanent resident of that place; whether she had property over there; or the
length of time she had resided there---Defendant neither in written statement nor
in his statement before court had disputed the fact that marriage had not been
consumed---Plaintiff had categorically stated that she on attaining puberty had
repudiated the same---Such statement was corroborated by father of plaintiff---
Defendant had conceded that she was 14 years of age at the time of marriage
---Factum of repudiation having not been rebutted, by defendant, he was not
entitled to relief---Finding of Trial court not suffering from misreading or non-
reading was -maintained in circumstances. ---[Words and phrases].

Side Appellant : TAJ MAI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S. 6---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), Ss.7 & 5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---
Constitutional petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Territorial jurisdiction
of family court ---Term "ordinarily resides" as used in R.6, West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965--Connotation---Words "ordinarily resides" connote that
benefit be given to wife who had shifted from place of her husband to other place
and proves that she has been residing at a place where she was invoking
jurisdiction of family court --Where estranged wife under fear of her death shifts
her residence for invoking jurisdiction of family court other than the place of her
husband and proves to the court that she was ordinarily residing within its
jurisdiction, family court being Special court can accept the same after
examining evidence on record--Rule 6, West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965,
provides procedure in suits for dissolution of marriage and it deviates from
normal procedure by authorising family court to adjudicate family suits within
local limits of which wife ordinarily resides---Provision of R.6, West Pakistan
family court s rules , 1965, being enabling provision is for benefit of wife and it
can be read in that context when estranged wife who has left her husband's
abode and has sought residence at any other place of her own choice and proves
that she had been ordinarily residing over there, then family court cannot refuse
jurisdiction to hear her suit, when she invokes jurisdiction by filing family suit---
If the wife has successfully proved that she had to leave place of her husband
due to fear of death and has come to live at a different place with her uncle,
family court at the place where wife has shifted has thus, jurisdiction to
adjudicate her case.

Side Appellant : TAJ MAI
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ----Premable---family court s being Special
courts can regulate themselves through, procedure given in West Pakistan
family court s Act, 1964 which deviates from the procedure regulated by Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Procedure of family court
is more flexible so that family matters can be settled by way of administration of
justice in its true sense unhindered by technicalities.

Side Appellant : NADIRA SHAHZAD
Side Opponent : MUBASHIR AHMAD
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ---R. 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.
5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to
consider, whether the High court was right in holding that strict compliance of
explanation of delay of each day as contemplated under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908
was not to be applied to an application under R. 22, West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965.

Side Appellant : MOHSIN SHAH
Side Opponent : QASEEMA WAHID
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 R. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Arts. 203 & 199---Supervisory jurisdiction of High court ---Dismissal of
application for setting aside ex parte proceedings by Trial court --- Constitutinal
petition under Art.199, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), against such dismissal---
Applicant, who was a Lt. Colonel in the Army had clearly stated in his
application that his absence was not intentional but that at relevant time he was
posted in such areas which was "special conditions areas", therefore, he could not
personally appear; that his counsel had gone for higher studies abroad and for
that reason he also could not appear and the moment he came to know of ex
parte proceedings he had moved the application for setting aside the same---
Held, Trial court was misadvised to decide the application after hearing the
arguments especially when it was to dismiss the same---Applicant having
pleaded that he could not secure leave in those days and given some explanation
was entitled to an opportunity to prove his contentions which could only be
done by framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence and application
could only be decided after opportunity to the applicant to substantiate the
same---Whatever the worth of plea was, applicant should have been allowed a
chance to prove the same before discarding the same---Dismissal of application
by the Trial court was based on erroneous facts, therefore, the impugned order
was illegal, without lawful authority and liable to be set aside in exercise of
jurisdiction under Art.203 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YAR
Side Opponent : KANIZ FATIMA
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 S. 7(1)---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of
1890), S.25---West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---
Jurisdiction to hear guardianship cases---Provision of S.5, West Pakistan family
court s Act, 1964, gives exclusive jurisdiction to family court s to entertain, hear
and adjudicate upon matters specified in the Schedule, wherein guardianship is
listed as Item No.6---family court s, thus, have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of
guardianship cases---family court while dealing with guardianship cases, would
follow procedure prescribed in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890---Trial court
being a family court had jurisdiction to decide the case of guardianship.--
[Jurisdiction].

Side Appellant : KARAMAT U. KAZI
Side Opponent : DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S. 14---West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965, Rr. 13 & 22---Appeal against judgment of family court ---Limitation---
Judgment and decree of family court were not ex parte since defendant had
contested suit by filing written statement and even issues were framed on the
basis of t9leadings of parties---Fact that such suit was decreed after closing the
side of defendant, would not make it ex parte decision---Only remedy available
to defendant was to file appeal under S. 14, West Pakistan family court s Act, 164
and not to move application under R. 13, West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965--Period of 30 days having been prescribed by R. 22, West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965 for filing appeal against judgment of family court such
period would run from the date of passing of decree---Appeal being still pending
adjudication, Appellate court would consider the question of limitation.

Side Appellant : AZIZAN BIBI
Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, BADIN
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 ----Ss. 12 & 9---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), S. 14--West Pakistan family , court s rules , 1965, R. 7---Interim
custody of minor--Mode for determination---Essentials,---court for purpose of
deciding interim custody of minor, has first to determine point of jurisdiction if
same is challenged and thereafter, to decide question of interim custody---Where
court had failed to determine such points its order requiring minor to be present
in court on every date was not warranted---Case was remanded to Trial court to
determine. question of jurisdiction in accordance with law and thereafter, to pass
order of interim custody of minor if he had jurisdiction to try the case.---
[Jurisdiction].

Side Appellant : MINHAJUDDIN
Side Opponent : BELEIGHUDDIN
Order XXXIII of Supreme court rules -----OXXXIII, R.6---family settlement---
family settlement entered into by parties to appeal---Parties agreed that entire
property of their predecessor be put in a pool as on specified date when alleged
gift as family settlement was made and divided amongst his heirs applying
Shariat Law as far back as in 1952, whereby share of each heir was specified---
Question of debt of Custodian was, however, left out to be dealt with separately
by the court ---Parties had submitted a detailed report duly signed by their
counsel showing details of joint property and the manner in which they effected
partition thereof, by metes and bounds which report would be deemed to be part
of the judgment and decree of court ---Parties to whom specific areas had been
allotted for partition according to report were declared exclusive owners
thereof---As regards debt of the Custodian, in view of mutual settlement of long
drawn out dispute between the heirs of deceased (the last full owner), Supreme
court in exercise of inherent powers under O. XXXIII, R. 6, Supreme court rules ,
1980 waived the debt of Custodian.

Side Appellant : ROBINA TAHIR
Side Opponent : AZAM HUMAYUN
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 -----S.25-A---West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965, R.6---Transfer of family suit---family disputes---Place for
adjudication---family disputes between same parties should be better
adjudicated upon by one and the same court ---Better place for adjudication of
such causes was the place where wife had instituted suit---Filing of suit earlier in
time by husband was not an impediment in the way of transfer of his suit to a
place when wife had subsequently instituted the proceedings---Suit for
dissolution of marriage filed by wife at 'M' and for restitution of conjugal rights
filed by husband at 'R'---Wife seeking transfer of suit filed by husband to 'M' at
the place of her residence and where her own suit was pending against
husband---Husband's objection that wife was not residing at 'M' was falsified by
the admission of husband himself in his plaint wherein he had given wife's
address at 'M'---Wife being entitled to institute suit for dissolution of marriage at
a place where she was residing, that right could not be lightly taken away---Such
right having been exercised by wife, husband's suit filed at 'R' could effectually
be adjudicated upon at 'M' as in the suit of wife and that of husband common
questions of law and facts were bound to arise---Husband's suit filed at 'R' for
restitution of conjugal rights was transferred to 'M' where wife was residing and
had filed suit for dissolution of marriage.

Side Appellant : RASHID KHAN
Side Opponent : M. MURTAZA KHAN
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Arts. 2A, 199; 203-D & 203-6, 203-F & 203-B (c)---Repugnancy to Injunctions of
Islam---Validity of S.4, Muslim family Laws Ordinance, 1961 on the touchstone
of Art. 2A of the Constitution---High court has no power to declare any law
invalid on the touchstone of Art. 2A of the Constitution---Objectives Resolution
having become substantive part of the Constitution by insertion of Art. 2A in the
Constitution, it would not have overriding effect vis-a-vis, the remaining
provisions of the Constitution---Effect of Art. 2A of the Constitution---Object of
inserting Art. 2A in the Constitution was that Objectives Resolution should no
longer be treated merely as a declaration of intent but should enjoy the status of a
substantive provision an d become equal in weight and status as the other
substantive provisions of the Constitution---Where inconsistency was found to
exist between the provisions of the Constitution and the Objectives Resolution,
same should be harmonised by the court s in accordance with the established
rules of interpretation of Constitutional documents---court s being creatures of
the Constitution could not annul any existing Constitutional provisions on the
plea of repugnancy with the provisions of Art. 2A of the Constitution---court s
being the creatures of the Constitution on no principle of law they could be
allowed to cut the tree on which they were perched---Role of Objectives
Resolution, notwithstanding the insertion of Art. 2A in the Constitution
(whereby the Objectives Resolution has been made a substantive part thereof)
has not fundamentally transformed from the role envisaged for it at the outset;
viz. that it should serve as beacon light for the Constitution makers and guide
them to formulate such provisions for the Constitution which reflect ideals and
the objectives set forth therein---Provisions of Art. 2A of the Constitution were
never intended at any stage to be self-executory or to be adopted as a test of
repugnancy or of contrariety---court s were not empowered to apply the test of
repugnancy by invoking Art. 2A of the Constitution for striking down any other
provision of the Constitution--Provisions of Arts. 203-D & 203-G of the
Constitution vesting exclusive jurisdiction in Federal Shariat court and the
Supreme court (Appellate Shariat Bench) prima facie create bar of various types
for treating Objectives Resolution as a self-executory instrument enforceable by
the court s for the change of existing statute law into Islamic enforceable law,
over and above the methods, envisaged in various Constitutional provisions---
High court , thus, had no jurisdiction to declare any law invalid on the
touchstone of Art. 2A of the Constitution---Provision of S. 4, Muslim family
Laws Ordinance being applicable in matters of inheritance covered by it would,
therefore, govern the rights of the parties in the case.
Side Appellant : SHABBIR AHMED
Side Opponent : GHULAM SAKINA
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 Ss. 9, 12 & 14---West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965, R.22---Decree in suit for maintenance against husband---Husband
instead of filing appeal against such decree in terms of S. 14, filed application for
setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed---Husband's appeal against
decree for maintenance after dismissal of his application for setting aside decree
in terms of S. 9, having been filed beyond period of thirty days from the date of
impugned decree, was rightly dismissed by Appellate court . especially when
husband never moved any application for extension of the period of limitation in
terms of R.22, West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965.

Side Appellant : ABDUL RAZZAQ
Side Opponent : REHANA AKHTAR
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ----S. 5 & Sched:---West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965, R.6---Suit for dissolution of marriage ---Territorial
jurisdiction of court ---court within local limits of which wife ordinarily resided,
would also have jurisdiction in the matter.

Side Appellant : NASEEM AKHTAR DURRANI
Side Opponent : MST. ABIDA SULTAN
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----S. 6(5)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Venue for trial--Existing wife was married to petitioner at Rawalpindi
where he himself also resided---Application for contracting a second marriage
could be made by him to the Union Council/Union Committee comprising the
area where the existing wife was residing in Rawalpindi as provided by Rule 3(a)
of rules under family Laws---Petitioner was alleged not to have obtained
permission from the Arbitration Council of the said area before contracting
second marriage at Murree ---Although the final act of contracting second
marriage took place at Murree, yet the two essential ingredients for constituting
an offence under S.6(5) of the Ordinance i.e., the residence of existing wife and
the location of Arbitration Council fell within the area of Rawalpindi ---court of a
Magistrate at Rawalpindi as well as that at Murree, therefore, had jurisdiction to
try the complaint filed by the respondent (existing wife) and order passed by the
trial court at Rawalpindi summoning the petitioner to face the trial before it was
not open to any serious exception---Constitution petition was consequently
dismissed in limine.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED AKHTAR
Side Opponent : COLLECTOR
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 S.9 --- West Pakistan rules under Muslim
family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.16 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ---
Limitation for filing revision against order of maintenance passed by Arbitration
Council being thirty days, revision filed beyond period of one month would be
barred by time --- Petitioner had been appearing be fore Arbitration Council, on
certain dates but subsequently absented himself --- No justification was pointed
out for not challenging order of Arbitration Council within time --- Petitioner
having failed to avail of statutory remedy within time and his revision having
been dismissed as barred by time, he could not challenge order of Arbitration
Council on merits before High court in Constitutional jurisdiction --- Petition was
dismissed in circumstances.

Side Appellant : SAJIDA PARVEEN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 ----Ss. 25, 1 & 4-A---West Pakistan family court s
Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5--West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, Rr. 6 & 7---
Application under S. 25, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 can be instituted in the
court of Senior Civil Judge who can transfer same to the Civil Judge for hearing
and decision.

Side Appellant : ALLAH JIWAYA
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AHMADPUR SHARQIA
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ---R.10-A---Evidence---Mode of
recording---Presiding Officer of the family court is authorised to have the
evidence of witnesses taken down in writing by, someone else in his presence
and hearing and under his direction and superintendence ---Where statements of
witnesses were signed by the Presiding Officer and his note thereon stated that
the said statements were dictated by him to the Reader, such proceedings did not
suffer from any illegality.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIM
Side Opponent : REHANA PARVEEN BEGUM
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ---R.13--Ex parte orders, recall of--For the
recall of ex parte orders, merits were not directly relevant--In cases however,
where serious injury, based on clear injustice was shown that would be one of
the circumstances which might weigh with a court in favourably adjudicating
upon a plea to reopen ex parte proceedings.

Side Appellant : NOORAN MAI
Side Opponent : SHAFT MUHAMMAD
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ---S.9(6)--West Pakistan family court s rules
, 1965, R.13--Setting aside ex parte decree--Limitation for--Where ex parte decree
was passed against a person it was open to him to file application under S. 9(6),
family court 's Act for setting it aside within reasonable time showing sufficient
cause within meaning of the law- Provision of Rule 13 of West Pakistan family
court s rules , prescribing period of 30 days for setting aside such decree was in
conflict with provisions of section 9 of the Act and has to yield to said provision
of Act--What was reasonable time, would depend upon peculiar facts of each
case--A person would be acting with gross negligence if he failed to make any
effort to find out as to what had finally happened m his suit, as he would not be
supposed to wait for more than 5 years for filing application for setting aside ex
parte decree.

Side Appellant : MUNAWAR HUSSAIN NAQVI
Side Opponent : FARRUKH LATIF, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ---S.9(6)--West Pakistan family court s rules
, 1965, R.13--Ex parte decree--Application for setting aside--Limitation--Act
provides that application for setting aside ex parte decree could be filed within
reasonable time of passing thereof while provisions of R. 13 of the West Pakistan
family court s rules has provided that application for setting aside ex parte
decree could be made within 30 days from its passing--Provision of R. 13 thus is
in conflict with provisions of S. 9(6) of the Act--Rule would have to yield to
provision of the Act to the extent of inconsistency and provisions of Rule
regarding limitation would be ultra vires the provisions of S.9(6) of the Act.--
[Limitation--Interpretation of statutes].

Side Appellant : HAMIDA BEGUM
Side Opponent : UBEDULLAH
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 R.7[as substituted by Notification
No.Integ.10-31/64, dated 17th .April, 1969]--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of
1890), S.47 [as amended by Guardians and Wards (Amendment) Ordinance
(XXVII of 1981)]-Appointment of guardian--Forum for suits relating to--Suits
relating to appointment of guardians have to be instituted, heard and tried by
court of Civil Judge having jurisdiction to try a suit within local limits of which
cause of action wholly or in part had arisen or where parties resided or last
resided together--Appeal against decision of such court would lie before District
Judge.

Side Appellant : PERVAIZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : TAHRA SHAHEEN ALIAS BALQUEES SHAHZADI
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 ---R. 13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199--Setting aside of ex parte decree- --Application by husband against ex
parte decree dismissed on the ground that wife having contracted second
marriage after ex parte decree, such application had become infructuous--Held,
although wife had contracted second marriage soon after obtaining ex parte
decree, yet that could hardly be treated as valid ground for throwing out
application of petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree--Such application ought
to have been decided after holding inquiry into the question whether husband
had sufficient reasons for not appearing in court to contest proceedings for
dissolution of marriage--family court had proceeded to dismiss application of
husband on ground which was not available under law--Such order would be of
no legal effect--Application of husband for setting aside of ex parte decree would
be treated as still pending and family court was directed to dispose of same in
accordance with law.

Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR
West Pakistan rules Under the Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 --R. 5(7)--
Evidence Act (I of 1872)--Copy of notice of Talaq though Paced on record, was
neither proved nor exhibited in court --Effect--proceedings before family court
were both adversary and inquisitorial--Where a party failed to perform a
technical act, it would be duty of court to make necessary inquiry if question
between parties was of substantial nature--court is duty bound to frame correct
issues and also to take note of any material lying on its own record in connection
with a question of real controversy between parties-Technical rules c f Evidence
Act, however, would not in term apply to proceedings before family court .

Side Appellant : AMINA BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ---S.25-A--West Pakistan family court s
rules , 1965, R.7--Transfer of case--Application filed at L by husband for custody
of minors--Wife a Parda Nashin lady having already instituted two suits against
husband for dissolution of marriage and for maintenance, pending at O which
were being attended to by husband who could also pursue application for
custody of minors there without undergoing much of inconvenience--Husband's
application ordered to be transferred from L to O.
Citation Name : 1986 PCRLJ 1510 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : SUBEDAR MALIK SHER MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 6--West Pakistan rules under the
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961, r. 21--Polygamy--omplaint--court s in
Baluchistan have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on accusation of
polygamy unless complaint was made by concerned Union Committee--
Complaint filed by private complainant, held, was not maintainable.--
[Complaint].

Side Appellant : SHALL MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : CIVIL JUDGE, TANDO ALLAHYAR
Civil Procedure Code --Order XX of C.P.C. Judgement and Decree ---O.XX, R. 5--
West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R.14--Issue framed in suit dealt with
separately by Trial court and reasons given for findings on all such issues--Trial
court , held, had not contravened provisions of 0. XX, R. 5 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 and West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, R. 14.

Side Appellant : NUSRAT BIBI
Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 S.5--West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965, r.6--Rukhsati/ Consummation of marriage not taking place--Suit for
restitution of conjugal rights--Cause of action--Jurisdiction of family court to try
suit--Wife to follow abode of her husband--Husband bringing suit for restitution
of conjugal rights against wife at place L--Wife residing at place K--Plea that
family court at place L had no jurisdiction to try suit, held, was not tenable--Gist
of action for restitution of conjugal rights; that married persons are bound to live
together and share rights and obligations springing from marriage contract--If
one or other has withdrawn himself or herself without lawful cause either before
or after consummation it was a violation of conjugal duty entitling injured party
to seek relief through court of law--Wife in normal circumstances to follow abode
of her husband--Cause of action arises where husband lives and wife refuses to
live.--(Jurisdiction].

Side Appellant : HAYAT KHATOON
Side Opponent : ALLAH DINO
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ---S.5--West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965,rr.3 & 7--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25--Custody of minor--
Application for custody of minor entertained directly by family court /Civil
Judge and order passed thereon--Order, held, without lawful authority--Suit
filed under S. 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 deemed to have been
presented before District Judge for deciding question of custody of minors in
accordance with law.

Side Appellant : HAYAT KHATOON
Side Opponent : ALLAH DINO
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 Ss.2, 5 & 25 and Schedule, item 5--West
Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, rr. 3, 5 & 7--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII
of 1890), S.25--Custody of minor--Suit for custody of minor must be instituted in
court of District Judge who can transfer case to an Additional District Judge or
Civil Judge having jurisdiction under r. 5, West Pakistan family court s rules ,

Side Appellant : LUKMAN
Side Opponent : YAR MUHAMMAD
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ---Art. 199--West Pakistan family court s rules ,
1965, r. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 and O.IX, r. 13--Ex parte
decree granting Khula'--Setting aside of--Service of summons by newspaper-
Husband residing in foreign country--Husband taking plea that newspaper in
which summons published did not go to country where he resided and remained
unaware of proceeding and thus was condemned unheard--court not accepting
plea as stamp paper for power-of-attorney of petitioner stating full detail was
purchased and later authenticated by Notrary Public before publication of notice
in papers--Petitioner, held, had full knowledge of proceedings in circumstances.

Side Appellant : JAMILUDDIN
Side Opponent : SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KARACHI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 ---S.7--Sind Chief court rules , r.418---
Breach of r.418 of Sind Chief court Rule --Effect-Co...guardian appointed by
family court not examined in court as to fitness and competency of such co-
guardian--Rule 418 of Sind Civil court s rules being of technical nature, held,
should not be allowed to defeat order which was otherwise in accordance with
law--Such co-guardian, however, was examined in High court and deemed to be
fit person appointed as such-- Co-guardian being brother of minor children was
well qualified to took after their person and property.
Citation Name : 1985 PCRLJ 2840 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIR
Side Opponent : MST. KANIZ FATIMA
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S. 431--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of
Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(2)--Criminal complaint filed under S.
10(2) of Ordinance VII of 1979 dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on two
grounds; firstly that same was not first of all filed in court of Magistrate as
required under S. 190(3), Cr.P.C. and secondly that case was falling only under S.
494, P.P.C.--Revision against--Respondent allegedly contracting second marriage
during period of Iddat--Respondent pleading that earlier marriage between
spouses having not been consummated no question of Iddat arose--Question
whether marriage had been consummated or not, going to root of case--Ex parte
decree of dissolution of marriage obtained by respondent on ground of option of
puberty having been set aside and matter had to be decided on merits by family
court --Trial court , held, did have a contentious matter before him to decide--
Trial court , held further, failed to do what he was required to do according to
law and passed an unjustified order--Order passed by trial court set aside--
However, proceedings stayed in view of rules laid down by Supreme court in P
L D 1984 S C 95 till decision of suit for dissolution of marriage by family court .

Side Appellant : SAFDAR ALI ZIA
Side Opponent : UMME RABBAB
---- Art. 199 - West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, r. 6-Dissolution of
marriage on ground of Khula-Territorial jurisdiction of court -Onus to prove that
wife was residing at O, not discharged by husband (petitioner)-Contention of
wife (respondent) that she was working at S in a school, accepted-Judge family
court at S, held, had territorial jurisdiction to decide case.

Side Appellant : NUSRAT PARVEEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ---S.24--West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of
1964), S.25-A--West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, r.6--Transfer of suit--
Grounds-Petitioner/wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was prior to
husband/ respondent's suit of restitution of conjugal right--Inconvenience of
Pardanashin lady--Wife apprehending abduction at hands of husband-Similar
issues involved in both suits--Held, valid ground existed for transfer of
husband's suit from place J to X----Place F where wife's suit for dissolution of
marriage was pending--Convenience of lady litigant has to be given preference.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD BAKHSH
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 -- R. 16 - "Decree" - Decree of family court
not drawn in Form I nor in conformity with r. 16 of family court rules , held, not
a decree-No evidence whatsoever with family court to enable it to decide suit on
merits and order passed for absence of plaintiff and his witnesses - Order passed
by family court , held further, merely an order of dismissal of suit in default of
appearance of plaintiff and such an order specifically excluded from definition of
a "decree" as incorporated in subsection (2) of S. 12 of West Pakistan family court
Act.-[Decree].

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
Side Opponent : IRSHAD BIBI
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 -----Dissolution of marriage on grounds of
cruelty, false charge of adultery and khula'-Application of Evidence Act, 1872 of
having been excluded, family court cannot follow any general law or principle
other than Muslim Law-family court , however, supposed to follow procedural
law provided in the Act and rules made thereunder-court cannot override
existing statutory provisions on basis of general proposition-Li'aan-
Administration of oath regarding li'aan-Condition that accuser should persist in
making accusation and accused should insist on putting him to proof not
satisfied in case-family Judge, held need not in circumstances administer to
parties oath under Muslim Law.-Evidence Act (I of 1872).

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Side Opponent : MST. ZUBEIDA KHATOON
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 Ss. 7 & 47---West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), Ss. 25 & 14 read with West Pakistan family court rules , 1965, r.
22---Application wader S. 7, Guardians and Wards Act, filed before District
Judge acting as family court under West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964----
Appeal against order passed in, lies under provisions of S. 14 of Act XXXV of
1964 read with r. 22 of West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965 and not under S.
47 of Act VIII of 1890---Period of limitation for appeal from order of Guardian
Judge acting as family court under family court s Act----30 days and not 90 days.

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Side Opponent : MST. ZUBEIDA KHATOON
Limitation Appellant must show that his conduct throughout the period from
passing of judgment till filing of appeal has been one of reasonable diligence---
West Pakistan family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 14---West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965, r. 22.

Side Appellant : MST. KHAIRUN NISA
Side Opponent : SAYED ABDUR RAHIM
West Pakistan family court rules 1965 r. 6-Jurisdiction of court -Not dependent
upon movements Or plaintiff or where she happens to reside for time being-
Residence of person favouring whom cause of action accrued-Does not govern
territorial jurisdiction of court .

Side Appellant : JUMA KHAN
Side Opponent : MST. GUL FEROSHA
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 S. 25 read with West Pakistan family court s Act
(XXXV of 1964), S. 25 and West Pakistan family court s rules , 1965, r. 7-Senior
Civil Judge while hearing and trying suit under S. 25, Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 description himself as Senior Civil Judge and not as Judge family court
-Mis-description or non-description, held, did not affect his jurisdiction.

Side Appellant : NAZABAT
Side Opponent : THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---Ss. 3 & 6 read with West Pakistan rules
under family Laws Ordinance, 1961, r. 3-Jurisdiction-Section 3 of Ordinance-
Excludes application of Criminal Procedure Code to proceedings under
Ordinance-Contention that marriage having been contracted at place P court M
place M had no jurisdiction in matter--Repelled.

Side Appellant : MST. TAHIRA BEGUM-
Side Opponent : CH. MATIULLAH
West Pakistan family court Act 1964 Sched. read with West Pakistan family
court s rules , 1965, r. 6-Suit for maintenance-Wife can bring action at place
where parties reside or last resided or where cause of action wholly or in part
arose Place of marriage could be a place where part of cause of action could be
said to have arisen.

Side Appellant :
Side Opponent :
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7(3) & (4) read with West Pakistan
family court s Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 21(3) and West Pakistan family Laws rules
, 1961, r. 6, proviso-Dissolution of marriage-Decree for dissolution of marriage
passed by family court -Becomes effective and absolute on expiry of 90 days of
its receipt by appropriate Chairman if no reconciliation effected within such
time-Actual service of notice on husband for conciliation purposes-Not
essential---Attempt made but no service of notice effected-No provision of law,
held, renders dissolution of marriage in effective in circumstances.

Side Appellant : MST. HANIFAN
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DADU AND OTHERS
Muslim family Laws Ordinance 1961 ------ S. 5 read kith Muslim family Laws
rules (West Pakistan). 1961, rr. 7 & 10-Allegations of interpolation by Nikah
Registrar in Nikah Register-Union Council under r. 7(4)- has power to revoke
licence and prosecute Registrar - Entries made .by Registrar, however, cannot be
corrected by Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Controlling Authority--
Allegation that amount of Rs. 2,000 as dower money was changed to Rs. 20,000
by Nikah Registrar-Determination of dispute, regarding correct amount agreed
upon by parties, rests with Civil court .

Family Court Rules

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Family Court Rules

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Citation Name : 2007 CLC 281 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : Mst. KOUSAR BEGUM

Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 10 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2007 CLC 228 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 14 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 489 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 457 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2767 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2006 CLC 479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2006 PSC 803 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2006 PSC 631 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2006 CLC 1589 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2005 PLD 22 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2005 PSC 1463 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2005 SCMR 1880 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2005 SCMR 1595 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2005 YLR 795 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 2005 CLC 1392 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 2005 PSC 886 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 2005 MLD 579 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2004 PLD 475 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2004 CLC 652 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2003 SCMR 115 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2003 SCMR 1325 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 141 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 3332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1441 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1625 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2003 PTD 602 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN

Citation Name : 2002 CLC 1838 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2002 PLD 524 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2002 PLD 524 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2002 CLC 1744 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1375 BAR-COUNCIL-TRIBUNAL-NWFP

Citation Name : 2002 YLR 1575 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Citation Name : 2001 YLR 175 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Citation Name : 2001 SCMR 2000 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 2001 YLR 2415 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2001 PLD 188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2001 CLC 567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 2000 CLC 1258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1999 YLR 2531 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Citation Name : 1999 YLR 1941 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1999 CLC 514 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1998 PSC 1104 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 1998 SCMR 2246 SUPREME-COURT

Citation Name : 1998 CLC 1875 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 1998 PCRLJ 1972 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1998 CLC 1011 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1998 PSC 44 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1998 MLD 1813 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 1998 CLC 319 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 1997 PLD 580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1997 PLD 541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1997 PLD 541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1997 CLC 742 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1997 MLD 3244 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Citation Name : 1996 PLD 64 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 1996 PLD 64 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Citation Name : 1996 CLC 1820 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Citation Name : 1996 MLD 2017 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE