In “Mst. Rabia Bibi v. Abdul Qadir and others” (2016 CLC 1460) it was observed to the effect that mere fact of remarriage of mother would not ipso facto disentitle her from retaining custody of minor and handing him over to the father when it is not otherwise in the welfare of the minor and that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a minor. In “Mst....
Second marriage could not be made a ground to disentitle the mother to the custody of the minors.
In “Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer and six others”
(2003 YLR 3054) while considering the objection on the
basis of second marriage of the mother, in custody
matters, it was observed that:
“6. The second plea is also not sufficient to disentitle
the respondent No.1 from having the custody of the
minors. She was deserted along with the 3 minors and
was thrown into a tide of hostile social...
Granting permanent custody of a male minor of tender age to his father
The petitioner who was paternal grandmother and also
having statedly entered second wedlock herself after the
death of her husband, could not be given preference to the
real mother of the minors who since their birth was
looking after them and bringing up the children along
proper and better lines. In “Mst. Noor Afshan v.
Muhammad Ghalib and 3 others” (2019 CLC 1787) it
was observed as follows:
“…Learned...
Marriageable age by the time she get decided her suit for dissolution of marriage.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Farzana Rasool and 3
others v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir and others (2011
SCMR 1361) at page 1373 are quite relevant which are
reproduced as under:
“So, if the provisions of the Code and the
Evidence Act were made applicable, it would
have frustrated the very object of the Act,
which requires the Special Court shall be
constituted and such Court hall have
exclusive...
Does not pay the decretal amount he will pay the same
5. It is established from the record that
the petitioner was not party in the suit. It is
also established from bare perusal of the
execution petition that the same was filed
against Muhammad Nasir, judgment-writer.
It is also established from the record that no
decree has been passed against the
petitioner. The petitioner never stood surety
or guarantor on behalf of the judgmentdebtor. The petitioner...
Sole property of the petitioner cannot be attached by the learned executing court.
3. It is mainly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that any order
against a person who is not party to the
proceedings is not executable against him.
He has placed reliance on 2006 SCMR 913.
He submits that the attached property is
under the exclusive ownership and
possession of the petitioner and the
judgment-debtor has no concern with this
property. He further contends that the
petitioner...
File fresh suit on the same cause of action
6. In case titled “Sh. Shajar Hussain v.
Haji Abdul Majeed and others” (2006
SCMR 913), it has been held as under:-
“After hearing the learned counsel for
both sides and taking into
consideration the fact that the
property was originally owned by the Panjnad Textile Mills, therefore, it
was incumbent upon the
plaintiff/petitioner to have impleaded
it as party and in absence of the
original...
Suit was filed by the minor children against grandfather
7. The judgment titled “Sultan Ahmad v.
Judge Family Court and 5 others” reported
in (PLD 2012 Lahore 148) is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of this case
and I respectfully do not follow the said
judgment for the reasons that in the said case
reliance has been placed on the case law
titled as “Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional
District Judge, Lyallpur and others” (PLD
1976 Lahore 930)....
Take up for comment the provisions of Article 128 ibid
Reliance is placed on the esteemed judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
cited as “Ghazala Tehsin Zohra versus Mehr
Ghulam Dastagir” (PLD 2015 SC 327), wherein it
has been observed that:-
“We first of all, take up for comment the
provisions of Article 128 ibid. The Article is
couched in language which is protective of
societal cohisn and the values of the
community. This appears...
Litigant was supposed to establish contact with his counsel and remain in touch with him in order to find out the result of the case
No doubt, it is the case of heavy amount of dower
and maintenance but a litigant should be vigilant while
conducting a case. “Litigant was supposed to establish
contact with his counsel and remain in touch with him in
order to find out the result of the case”. Reliance in this
regard is placed on case law titled “ALTAF HUSSAIN and 2
others versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others” (2001
SCMR 405).
Part...
Maintenance accrediting to section 368 of the Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mullah,
There is no
cavil to the proposition that none else except the
respondent is responsible to maintain her. In case
reported as Humayun Hassn ..Vs.. Arslan
Humayun and another (PLD 2013 Supreme
Court 557) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
has observed as under:-
“There can be no cavil with the
proposition that the maintenance issue(s), in
relation to Muslim relatives shall be governed
and regulated...
According to section 368 of the Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mullah, maintenance means and include food, raiment and lodging
According to Section 368 of the
Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla maintenance
means and include food, clothing, lodging but the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported
as Humayun Hassn ..Vs.. Arslan Humayun and
another (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 557) has
observed that said definition is neither conclusive
nor exhaustive and laid down as under:-
“
There can be no cavil with the
proposition that...
Appeal in case of dissolution of marriage was to protect women
The dictum laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan
in the case of Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge (supra) also supports the
view of this Court that if the petitioner-wife/decree-holder was aggrieved of the
decree of the Family Court she could avail the remedy of appeal. In the cited case
the August Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:
“the object behind non-provision...
Decreeing the suit on the basis of ‘khula’
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that remedy of appeal is not
available in view of section 14(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1964; that the
impugned order is against law and facts on record; that while decreeing the suit on the basis of ‘khula’ the learned trial Court has ignored the pleadings of the
petitioner in which she had also alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent;...
Trial Judge which is not allowed under the Civil Procedure Code opined further that Order XLI, rule 33, C.P.C, was not intended to apply to such an appeal.”
9. The aforesaid provision of law came
up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case reported as Messrs S.M. Yusuf and Bros. ..Vs.. Mirza Muhammad Mehdi Pooya
(PLD 1965 Supreme Court 15), and after
considering the authorities cited at Bar the purpose
underlying the above provision and its application
to the various disputes were summarized by the
Apex Court as under:-
“The term...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.
