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 of appeal in case of dissolution of marriage was to protect women, an under privileged and generally oppressed section of the society, from prolonged and costly litigation, as such it aimed to put a clog on the right of husband. It would be improper to construe subsection (2)(a) in a way so as to deprive a wife from appealing from the decree refusing her relief on the grounds, which according to the Family Court have not been proved but nevertheless granting the decree of dissolution on some other ground. Such an interpretation would be in violation of the wholesome provision of appeal contained in subsection 14(1) and the very object of introducing the Family Courts Act.”
“the object behind non-provision of appeal in case of dissolution of marriage was to protect women, an under privileged and generally oppressed section of the society, from prolonged and costly litigation, as such it aimed to put a clog on the right of husband. It would be improper to construe subsection (2)(a) in a way so as to deprive a wife from appealing from the decree refusing her relief on the grounds, which according to the Family Court have not been proved but nevertheless granting the decree of dissolution on some other ground. Such an interpretation would be in violation of the wholesome provision of appeal contained in subsection 14(1) and the very object of introducing the Family Courts Act.”
Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
25336-15
2016 LHC 4629
0 comments:
Post a Comment