---Custody of minors----Plea raised by mother of minors was that under the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, she could file application for...............

 2011 CLC 146

Ss.9 & 25---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.7(ii), second proviso---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Custody of minors---Territorial jurisdiction---Plea raised by mother of minors was that under the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, she could file application for custody of minors at the place of her right conferred on a wife by second proviso to S. 7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, meant that the place of her residence would create jurisdiction in competent court for the types of claims mentioned therein that a wife might file---If procedural technicality was allowed to rule the choice of forum in such a matter then benefit conferred upon a wife or a mother by second proviso to S. 7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, would be easily lost---Family Court at the place of residence of mother of minors had jurisdiction to entertain her application for custody of her minor children who were residing in some other city---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Read More

طلاق ، خلع ، عدت اور حلالہ کے بارے وفاقی شرعی عدالت کا تازہ ترین تفصیلی فیصلہ

PLD 2023 FSC 286

Islamic law --- Khula ' and ' Talaq ' --- Distinction between their legal effect --- ' Halala ' -- Scope --- According to Shariah , Khula operates as a single irrevocable divorce , which means that both the spouses can contract a fresh marriage with mutual consent , of course if they want to , without any intermediary marriage of the wife with another person , which is known as " Halala " --- Iddat shall be incumbent upon the wife if she wants to contract marriage with someone else after Khula --- However , when a husband pronounces divorce ( Talaq ) to his wife for the third time and that attains finality , then if he wants to remarry that lady , a Halala is required i.e. the lady marries somebody else and that marriage dissolves in normal course either by divorce or due to the death of her second husband and she becomes a widow .

Read More

Family Courts Act 1964, Ss.5 Sched Maintenance allownce for minors, Family court 7000/- per minor,.........

 PLD 2018 LHR 916,

Family Courts Act 1964, Ss.5 Sched Maintenance allownce for minors, Family court 7000/- per minor, Appellate court enhance 12000/- per minor, with 10% yearly increase, age of minors, needs of minor, earning capacity/income of Father, judgment of Appellate court set aside case remanded to Appellate court to consider all relevant facts.

Read More

This case, inter alia, involves following questions of law:

i. Whether the learned Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to try the declaratory suit, inter alia, regarding the reconciliation proceedings, issuance of certificate of effectiveness of divorce in the light of Section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ("Act, 1964")?

ii. Whether a husband loses the right to pronounce talaq, once such right is delegated to the wife?

Held: In terms of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1964 read with Entry No.1 of Part-I of the Schedule appended thereto as also Entry No.10 thereof, exclusive jurisdiction in family matters is conferred upon the Family Court, therefore, dissolution of marriage in all its modes and manners including khula and talaq-e-tafweez falls within purview of the jurisdiction of the Family Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent.

As regards the second question, it is held that even if a husband delegates his right of talaq to the wife, the said act of the husband does not mean that the husband has denounced his own right to pronounce the talaq and intimate factum of pronouncement of talaq to the Union Council concerned, for further proceedings leading to the issuance of certificate of effectiveness of divorce in terms of provisions of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961.

WP 13290-24
SHAHZAD AKBAR VS
ADJ ETC
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
17-10-2024
2024 LHC 4844

Read More

-Maintainability---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Interim maintenance, fixation of---Contention of defendant-father was that...........

 2019 CLC 1635

Ss.5, Sched., 17-A & 14 (3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Interim maintenance, fixation of---Contention of defendant-father was that interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court was exorbitant---Validity---Family Court had jurisdiction to pass interim order for maintenance at any stage of the proceedings in a suit for maintenance---Interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court was too meagre---Defendant had not made bona fide demand for the custody of his minor children---Father of minor children could not expect their mother to keep them as well as to pay all their expenses---Defendant-father was under a legal as well as a moral obligation to maintain and support his children---Impugned order passed by the Family Court was an interlocutory order---Maintenance fixed by the Family Court through impugned order was only temporary in nature---Amount fixed by the Family Court during proceedings of suit for maintenance might be modified and revisited while passing final order---Family Court could increase or decrease the quantum of maintenance after appraising the evidence produced by the parties during the trial---Constitutional petition against order for interim maintenance was not maintainable unless it was coram non judice or based on mala fide---Quantum of interim maintenance could not be made a ground for invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---S.14(3) of Family Courts Act, 1964 did bar appeal or revision against an interim order passed by the Family Court---Aggrieved party could agitate his grievance before appellate forum when the interim order would merged into a final order---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Read More

Guardianship to mother was dismissed.

 Guardianship to mother was dismissed.
2021 MLD 817 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Ms. SHAZIA AKBAR GHALZAI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD (EAST)

Ss.7, 17, 19 & 41---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Guardian, non-appointment of---Minor (son) was of three months old when his Mother/petitioner left him and went abroad to complete her Ph.D---Minor was looked after by his father/respondent---On her return to Pakistan mother/petitioner sought guardianship of minor but the same was refused by Guardian Court and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Father of minor was his/her natural guardian and welfare of child was best served when he/she remained under father's guardianship---Question as to how welfare of child would be best served in appointing a guardian instead of father could only arise when father was either not alive or was determined by Court to be unfit as guardian--- Court was not vested with any authority to appoint a guardian in place of father when father was alive and was not unfit to be guardian--- Even where father was found to be unfit to be guardian and another person was appointed in his place, such other guardian's authority ceased once circumstances leading to father declared unfit had changed and he was no longer deemed unfit by Court--- No one could be appointed guardian in father's place unless father was found unfit to serve as guardian of his child and onus to establish that the father was unfit was on the person bringing such claim--- Father/respondent was natural guardian and welfare of the child was in vesting responsibility of guardianship in him unless he was unfit for the purpose and declared so by a Court--- Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Read More

لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور کی خلع، طلاق اور تنسیخ نکاح پہ ایک خوبصورت ججمنٹ۔۔

 2021 PLD Lahore 757

خاتون نے فیملی کورٹ میں مقدمہ دائر کیا جس میں یہ موقف اپنایا گیا کہ شوہر کا تعلق میرے ساتھ ٹھیک نہیں ہے اور وہ مار پیٹ کرتا ہے وغیرہ وغیرہ لہذا مجھے میرا حق مہر جو کہ تین ملین سے زیادہ ہے اور دیگر جہیز کا سامان یہ سارا واپس کیا جاۓ اور عدالت مجھے خاوند سے طلاق دلواۓ بالفاظِ دیگر عدالت نکاح کی تنسیخ کرے۔

فیملی کورٹ نے فیصلہ کرتے ہوۓ تنسیخ نکاح کے بجائے خلع کا حکم پاس کیا اور خاتون کو حکم دیا کہ حق مہر سے دستبردار ہوجائیں۔ مذکورہ خاتون اپیل میں گئی اور اپیل میں بھی یہی فیصلہ برقرار رکھا گیا جس کے بعد خاتون کو مجبوراً ہائی کورٹ میں رٹ جوریسڈکشن میں جانا پڑا۔

معزز عدالت نے طے کیا کہ خلع بیوی کا شرعی حق ہے یہ عدالت کا اختیار نہیں ہے کہ وہ کسی کو بھی بن مانگے اس کا حق دلوانا شروع کردے اگر خاتون خلع نہیں مانگ رہی بلکہ تنسیخ نکاح کی بنیاد پہ طلاق مانگ رہی ہے تو عدالت تنسیخ نکاح کے بجائے خلع دینے کا اختیار نہیں رکھتی۔ اس صورت میں عدالت کو شہادت میں جانا ہوگا اور پراپر ٹرائل کے زریعے یہ طے کرنا ہوگا کہ آخر کن وجوہات کی بناء پر خاتون کو طلاق دی جاسکتی ہے یا نکاح کی تنسیخ کی جاسکتی ہے۔۔۔

سب سے اہم نکتہ جو معزز جج نے طے کیا وہ یہ کہ معزز جج نے صراحتا لکھا کہ خلع کی صورت میں بھی اگر خاتون خلع کے لیے راضی ہو مگر شوہر کی طرف سے اجازت نہ دی جاۓ تو یہ خلع شرعاً و قانونا جائز نہیں ہوگا کیونکہ شریعت کہتی ہے کہ خلع میں شوہر کی اجازت ضروری ہے۔

اگر خاتون خلع مانگ لے اور شوہر انکار کر دے تو شریعت و قانون میں خلع مؤثر تصور نہ ہوگا اس لیے خاوند کی اجازت یا قبول ضروری ہے (اس کے لیے دیکھیے مذکورہ ججمنٹ کا پیرا نمبر 14)

معزز جج نے مزید یہ کہا کہ خاتون جن وجوہات کی بناء پہ خاوند سے اپنا نکاح منسوخ کرانا چاہتی ہے اگر وہ وجوہات ثابت نہ ہو جاۓ تو اس صورت میں بھی عدالت خود سے خلع کا حکم نہیں دے سکتی بلکہ عدالت کو دیگر وجوہات کی طرف جانا ہوگا اور عدالت کو دیگر وجوہات کی بناء پر فیصلہ کرنا ہوگا کہ نکاح کی تنسیخ کی جاۓ لیکن خلع کی بنیاد پہ نہیں۔ (اس کے لیے دیکھیے پیرس نمبر 12)

مزید اسی پیرا سے آگے پیرا نمبر 15 میں طے پایا کہ خلع کی صورت میں عدالت یک طرفہ(ex parte) فیصلہ نہیں دے سکتی یعنی خاوند کی غیر موجودگی میں خلع کا فیصلہ نہیں کیا جاسکتا۔

اگر شوہر ان شرائط پہ خلع دینے پہ راضی نہ ہو جن پہ بیوی خلع لینا چاہ رہی ہو تو عدالت تب تک خلع کا حکم جاری نہیں کرسکتی جب تک دونوں کچھ شرائط پہ متفق ہوکر خلع کا فیصلہ نہ کردے۔

مزید یہ کہا گیا کہ اگر خاوند کی بیوی کے ساتھ نا بنتی ہو اور خاوند طلاق بھی نہ دینا چاہ رہا ہو بلکہ بیوی کو اس طرز پہ ٹریٹ کر رہا ہو کہ بیوی مجبور ہر کر خلع مانگ لے اور خاوند کو حق مہر بچ جاۓ تو اس صورت میں عدالتوں کو بہت محتاط ہونا چاہیے اور معاملہ کی تہ تک پہنچانا چاہیے کہ آخر غلطی کس کی ہے یا ظلم کون کر رہا ہے۔

مذکورہ ججمنٹ میں قرآن پاک سے اور ہدایہ سے بھی حوالہ دیا گیا ہے۔

PLD 2021 LAHORE 757.

Read More