Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in...........
* Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in the eye of law for that the wife i.e. donee of the gift did not have legal title to the house to sell the same to the petitioner---Both gift as well as the purported sale in favour of the petitioner were nothing but sham transactions and its purpose was to ensure that the decree for maintenance was not satisfied---decree was for the maintenance of the daughter, but unfortunately, the father in sheer disregard of his parental obligation had indulged in making unlawful transactions---court while exercising parental jurisdiction could not just sit and be a spectator in such unholy and unlawful conduct of the father---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, empowered the family court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---Order of attachment of the house of the father passed by the family court in execution of the decree passed by it, was in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
2015 SCMR 128
AMJAD IQBAL
Versus Mst. NIDA SOHAIL
Technical trappings of execution of decree provided in the civil Procedure Code, 1908, were excluded from application before the family court in execution of a decree for maintenance.
2015 SCMR 128 AMJAD IQBAL Versus Mst. NIDA SOHAIL
پہلی بیوی کی موجودگی میں یا پہلی بیوی کو طلاق دیکر عدت کی تکمیل سے قبل اس کی بہن سے شادی قابل تعزیر جرم ہے۔ لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا قران و سنت اور اسلامی احکامات کی روشنی میں انتہائی معلوماتی فیصلہ
i) Is it permissible for an individual to marry two real sisters concurrently?
ii) Can an individual marry the sister of his divorced wife while the latter is undergoing the Iddat period?
Shared by: Syed Naeem Ali Advocate
Regarding criminal liability arising out of a marriage involving the marriage of two sisters, most Hanafi jurists, including Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A), argue that such unions do not warrant the imposition of Hadd punishment. However, they are unanimous that considering its serious repercussions, it must be dealt with seriously, and Tazir must be inflicted.
Crl. Misc. No. 67328/B/2023
Musawar Hussain Vs The State and another
Date of hearing to be carefully noted---Suit for dissolution of marriage, dowry articles, maintenance---Right of petitioner/defendant to file written statement was closed by Family Court--
2022 CLC 391
QAISER-UR-REHMAN vs CIVIL JUDGE
Date of hearing to be carefully noted---Suit for dissolution of marriage, dowry articles, maintenance---Right of petitioner/defendant to file written statement was closed by Family Court---Contention that petitioner failed to appear before Court on account of misunderstanding regarding date of hearing ---Held, that Family Courts had been established for expeditious settlement/disposal of disputes relating to marriage/family affairs---Petitioner failed to appear on date of hearing but appeared more than 20 days after the date fixed in person and sought adjournment---Petitioner failed to submit written statement on due date was given final opportunity subject to costs---Presiding Officer, on next two dates was on leave---Finally petitioner's right was struck off---Opportunities/maximum statutory period was mechanically extended by Family Court in petitioner's favour without even recording sufficient reasons---Petitioner/his counsel had no lawful excuse for their negligence/indolence in noting down actual date of hearing and filing the written statement---Allowing the Constitutional petition would defeat the very purpose/object of Family Court Act, 1964 (i.e. expeditious settlement/disposal)---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Agreement to sell dated 8-8-2007 was executed by husband in favour of respondent; suit for specific performance was filed on 3-1-2008, which was dismissed by the civil court
Agreement to sell dated 8-8-2007 was executed by husband in favour of respondent; suit for specific performance was filed on 3-1-2008, which was dismissed by the civil court , however, the appeal filed by respondent was accepted vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 28-12-2008---Agreement to sell, filing of the suit for specific performance and the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent (objector) were all subsequent events to the decree of maintenance allowance passed in favour of the wife and minors; respondents (husband and objector) being close relatives in connivance with each other had tried to frustrate the decree of maintenance allowance passed in favour of the wife and minors---Any agreement to sell executed by the respondent (husband) regarding his property after the decree passed against him was illegal and unlawful and did not create any right in favour of the subsequent purchaser (objector)---Sale-deed executed by husband was result of fraud and connivance which could not be allowed to be made a tool to frustrate the judgment and decree of maintenance allowance passed in favour of the wife and minors---Appellate court had failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the judgment and decree ---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
2015 CLC 667
SAIMA PERVEEN
Versus
NAEEM AHMAD NASIR
After the compromise, the husband/judgment-debtor had not taken any ground that any amount towards the satisfaction of the decree was paid privately to the wife--
After the compromise, the husband/judgment-debtor had not taken any ground that any amount towards the satisfaction of the decree was paid privately to the wife---Withdrawal of first execution petition on the basis of compromise was not absolute but was on the basis of settlement arrived at that time, and till the satisfaction of a decree , it could be executed within the given aggregate period of six years, from the date of the decree ---family court could exercise its own powers to prevent the course of justice being deflected from its path---family court had to regulate its own proceedings in accordance with provisions of the West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 and in doing so, it had to proceed on the premise that every procedure was permissible unless a clear prohibition for the same was found in law, meaning thereby that the family court could exercise its own powers but was not debarred to follow the principles of the civil Procedure Code, 1908 coupled with the facts of a case---West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder had not expressly prohibited the filing of a second execution petition especially in the circumstances when there was nothing on record that after the compromise and withdrawal of the first execution petition, any payment had been made or efforts were completed for satisfying the decree privately---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
PLD 2012 Pesh. 159
IFTIKHAR KHAN
Versus
Mst. AMINA BIBI
Section 17 of West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 excluded the application of civil Procedure Code, 1908 except Ss. 10 & 11 of the same---Procedure set out in O. XXI, C.P.C. for execution of civil decree need not to be followed by a family court --
Section 17 of West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964 excluded the application of civil Procedure Code, 1908 except Ss. 10 & 11 of the same---Procedure set out in O. XXI, C.P.C. for execution of civil decree need not to be followed by a family court ---family court had been vested with the discretion as to how it would order for recovery of a money decree passed by it---Such discretion had to be exercised at the time of passing a decree ---Money decree was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue only if court had so directed at the time of passing of the same---family court might follow any procedure for implementation of its money decree including the arrest of judgment-debtor and attachment of his property if such direction had not been made by the same---Surety was as much bound by his undertaking as was the judgment-debtor---Both surety and judgment-debtor were collectively and severally liable to make payment to the decree -holder---Surety would not be absolved of his liability if judgment-debtor was sent behind the bars---Surety was to be conscious of his liabilities and he could not be allowed to evade from the same---Constitutional petition was dismissed in liming.
2015 YLR 316
MUHAMMAD AMIN
Versus
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SAHIWAL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
