Nikah can be entertain-able by the Judge Family Court?”

7. At the first instance with regard to issue of dower, it has to be examined that:-

“Whether the entry of column No.16 of Purt Nikah can be entertain-able by the Judge Family Court?” The columns No. 13 to 16 of Nikah Nama, which relates to dower, shows that in these specific columns, anything mentioned therein is the dower or the part of dower. The specific question whether the entry of column No. 16 can be treated as dower has already been examined by the apex Court in the case titled “Mst. YASMEEN BIBI versus MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN and others” (PLD 2016 SC 613), whereby it is held that an undertaking given in the Nikah Nama that certain property/land shall be transferred in the name of wife and she would be exclusive owner of the same, then such an undertaking can be construed as a part of dower or a gift to wife in consideration of marriage, therefore, it would fall within the exclusive domain of the Family Court to pass a decree in relation to such property/land.

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Maintenance
11306-15
2017 LHC 2850

Handing over custody of the minor during the summer vacations

12. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that family Court could not pass the order dated 25.06.2016 whereby application filed by respondent No.2 for handing over custody of the minor during the summer vacations was illegal on the ground that when the application already decided no fresh application could be entertained. In this regard, it is observed that the Guardian Judge exercises a parental jurisdiction and there is no scope of such jurisdiction for any undue adherence to technicalities. Separate application can be made on fresh grounds. Reliance is placed on “Malik Khizer Hayat Khan Tiwana and another v. Mst. Zainab Begum” (PLD 1967 SC 402).

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Guardianship
8132-17
2017 LHC 2257

Learned Guardian Judge/Judge Family Court under Section 12 of the Guardian

 learned Guardian Judge/Judge Family Court under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act was a decision or an interim order. This Court while confronted with the similar situation had already pronounced that such order falls within the purview of “decision given” and is appealable under Section 14 of Family Court Act. 1964. Reliance is placed on “Mst. Zaibun Nisa v. Muhammad Mozammil” (PLD 1972 Karachi 410). In another pronouncement “Syed Shamim Ahmad v. Mst. Riaz Fatima” (PLD 1975 Karachi 448), it was observed that expressions or decisions given in Section 14 are not in any manner qualified by any such word as final, and therefore, an order under Section 12 is a decision given and is appealable. Further reliance has been placed on “Muhammad Deen Malik and another v. IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi and 2 others” (1982 SCMR 1223) and “Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay” (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 454)

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Guardianship
8132-17
2017 LHC 2257

Suit for maintenance under Section 17- B

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on “Mst. Sabira Sultana v. Asif Firdous” (2011 YLR 1453). This judgment does not relate to a case of Guardianship and is a dispute pertaining to maintainability of appeals against an order passed in a suit for maintenance under Section 17- B which was under discussion, therefore, this judgment is inapt

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Guardianship
8132-17
2017 LHC 2257

Under Rule 5(6) of the West Pakistan Rules 1961

(PLD 1995 S.C. 633). He further submits that under Rule 5(6) of the West Pakistan Rules 1961 (Rules), all decisions of the Arbitration Council are taken by majority and where no decision could be taken with majority, the decision of the Chairman shall be the decision of Arbitration Council. He submits that in present case neither the majority decision was taken nor it is case of no decision by Members of Council, hence respondent No.1, could not pass impugned order dated 04.07.2017, which is coram non judice

Used In Judgment of
Lahore High Court
W.P. No.238815/2018

Option to appeal by virtue of section 14

"Now, I advert to the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner thut since the orders impugned heriin are of far rcuching consequences they can be challenged by means of a Constitutionul petition.

.,Assuming for the sake of arguwent that -these orders would have lot of beating on the fate of the case, of the whole gamut of dispute between the parties. Final decision on the suit would be option to appeal by virtue of section 14 of the said Ad and, therefore, if the petitioner fails before the learned Family Court, he will be able to assail, before the Appellate Court, the orders now being challenged by him. Thus, he has a remedy qua the orders in question although he with have to wait for some time to kave recourse to that remedy if at all there arises a need for his so doing. He wilt not have to worry bout those orders ,f the respondent's suit is dismissed by the learned Family Court If orders like those under challenge are allowed to be taken exception to in writ jurisdiction, it will not be possible to achieve the object for which the law embodied in the said Act was framed because writ petitions relating to such would obviously consume a lot of time and that would result in inordinute delav in the Jinalization of matrimonial disputes,,' '

PLD 1982 Lahore 281

Used In Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
29938-14
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search