It is settled that claim of custody of the minor needs prompt recourse to the legal remedies, which is lacking in case

8. This is not the case of ordinary impression. The instant case has its own facts and merits. It is admitted fact that the minor is in the custody of the petitioner eversince, she was 05 days old. Prima facie it seems that the minor was handed over to the petitioner by respondents No.1 and 2 with their own free will. It is also admitted that the petitioner and his family members are not strangers to the minor as the petitioner is living with her father and brother who are also father and brother of respondent No.2. It reflects that this arrangement continued till 2011 when some differences arose between the parties resulting into divergent litigation inter se the parties for the guardianship and custody of the minor. Admittedly, respondent No.1 filed application for restoration of custody of the minor on 29.10.2011 at a belated stage as at the relevant time, the minor had accustomed to the atmosphere provided by the petitioner and naturally minor had developed love and affection for the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is settled that claim of custody of the minor needs prompt recourse to the legal remedies, which is lacking in case of the respondent No. 1. Reference could be made of judgment reported in Mst. Shaheen Bibi (Nusrat Shaheen) Vs. Zulfiqar Ali Shah Kazmi and 2 others [(1995 CLC 306 (Lahore)].

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
WP- Family Law
15-14
2014 LHC 5489

Provision of law contemplates that a guardian ad-litem shall not be permitted to enter into a compromise with the plaintiff on behalf of the minor without obtaining a prior permission from the Court before which the matter is sub-judice against a minor.,

17. In the case in hand, no such permission was obtained by the guardian ad-litem before entering into compromise. Therefore, it was not a valid compromise and cannot bind the petitioners. In this regard, reference is made to the case reported as “Mst. Rakhmat Jan Vs. Umar Mehmood (Minor) and another” (PLD 2013 AJK (HC) 8) wherein it was held as under:-

 “The above mentioned provision of law contemplates that a guardian ad-litem shall not be permitted to enter into a compromise with the plaintiff on behalf of the minor without obtaining a prior permission from the Court before which the matter is sub-judice against a minor., But the trial Court did not fulfil the requirements of the said provision of law because the Court was bound to enquire as to whether a proposed compromise was in the interest of minor or not and to grant permission to a guardian ad-litem for the said compromise.  

 Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP- Family Law
2406-10
2014 LHC 5377

Father is even liable to maintain a divorced daughter.

12. Similar view was taken by this Court in “Muhammad Islam Vs. Mst. Rashidah Sultana and 4 others” (2013 CLC 698) and in “Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar” (2012 CLC 1407). This court in “Mian Muhammad Sabir Vs. Mst. Uzma Parveen and 2 others” (PLD 2012 Lahore 154) held that father is even liable to maintain a divorced daughter. It was held in the case as under:- 

“The rationale for providing maintenance to a Muslim female until her marriage is understandable as in most cases she could need the financial support of her father for having no means of her own. The responsibility of the father continues till his daughter’s marriage when it is passed on to her husband, who is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife. However, the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife lasts as long as the marriage is intact with the consequence that upon the dissolution of the marriage, the husband is no longer liable and has no obligation to maintain his erstwhile spouse. Upon losing her marital status, a female reverts to her status of a single lady who needs financial support in the same manner as she needed it before she was married. Her right to receive maintenance should not be defeated by her marriage no longer in existence. The rationale for providing maintenance to an unmarried lady is equally applicable to a divorced lady as in either case the single lady has no independent source of income. As such, there is no reason to treat a divorced lady differently and deny her the maintenance she is in need of it.”  

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP- Family Law
2406-10
2014 LHC 5377

Pronouncement of Talaq is not a pre-condition for the maintainability of the suit for recovery of dower.

22. I am also fortified in my opinion from the view taken by the Honourable High Court in its authoritative judgments cited as 2006 YLR 33 (Lahore) {Muhammad Azam versus Additional District Judge and others} and 2000 CLC 1384 (Lahore) {Dr. Sabira Sultana versus Maqsood Sulqari, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others} where it is held that the dower whether prompt or deferred is an inalienable right of wife and after consummation, same would become vested right of a wife at any time. Pronouncement of Talaq is not a pre-condition for the maintainability of the suit for recovery of dower. 

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
WP- Family Law
10265-14
2014 LHC 4091

جہاں بیوی/عورت رہتی ہوگی اسی جگہ فیملی کیس دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے

  جہاں بیوی/عورت رہتی ہوگی اسی جگہ فیملی کیس دائر کیا جاسکتا ہے۔ علاقائی اختیار سماعت نہیں دیکھا جائے گا۔ 

*محمد طارق بنام مسماۃ شاہین

* Verified Citation: *PLD 2006 Pesh 189* ۔

Amount of maintenance is exorbitant and petitioner is unable to pay the said amount as the same has been fixed without considering the financial position of the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner as respondent No.3 was unable to prove her case as her oral statement was set of contradictions. No such list of articles of Barri as relied upon by respondent No.3 was prepared or handed over to the petitioner at the time of Rukhsati. It is further complained that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the parties in its true perspective and reached to the conclusion not warranted by law. The findings of both the Courts below are not based on sound appreciation of facts, so he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below to the extent of dowry articles. Further submits that amount of maintenance is exorbitant and petitioner is unable to pay the said amount as the same has been fixed without considering the financial position of the petitioner. The learned counsel while relying upon Umar Farooq v. Mehnaz Iftikhar etc. (NLR 2007 Civil 105), Mst. Allah Rakhi v. Tanvir Iqbal and others (2004 SCMR 1739), Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Hajra Bibi and 2 others (PLJ 2008 Lahore 147) and Abdullah v. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others 1998 CLC 1631 (Lahore) prayed for setting aside of impugned judgments and decrees as well as order dated 07.04.2009. 

 Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP- Family Law
19091-09
2014 LHC 5328

Act which include matters pertaining to non-Muslims (including Ahmadies) as well as matters which arise out of non-codified personal law

11. The above raised question was already adjudicated upon by this court in the case reported as Riaz Javaid Vs. Sheraz Ahmed & 4 others (2010 CLC 1925) wherein the learned single judge of this court held that: 

“it is abundantly clear that the Family Courts established under the Act, 1964 embraces personal laws of all religions and entertain causes relating to matters mentioned in Para 1 of the schedule to the said Act which include matters pertaining to non-Muslims (including Ahmadies) as well as matters which arise out of non-codified personal law”.

 The above quoted judgment clearly holds that the followers of all religions fall within the purview of the provisions of Family Courts Act 1964 being the subject to this Act. Therefore, the first objection of the petitioner with regard to the applicability of the Act 1964 is repelled  

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP- Family Law
2163-09
2014 LHC 5509
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search