Advocates & Legal Consultant
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا ھے کہ خلع لینے کے بعد عورت اگر اپنے شوھر کے ساتھ دوبارہ نکاح کرنا چاھے تو ایسی صورت میں حلالہ کی ضرورت نہیں۔
مطلب یہ کہ
جس شوہر سے عورت نے خلع لیا ہے اس کے ساتھ حلالہ کیے بغیر نکاح کر سکتی ہے
Pld 2024 sc 645
Despite arrest in another case, pending petition for pre arrest bail of an accused can be decided on merits in his absence.
Crl. Misc.۔46363/23
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs The State etc.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq
13-05-2024
2024 LHC 2349
بچے کی ولدیت کے تعین کیلیے فریقین کی رضامندی کے بغیر ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ نہ کرایا جاسکتا ہے
Physiognomy, a best circumstantial evidence to assess paternity of a child.
Consent of the parties is essential to decide claim of the parties with respect to paternity of the child. If the parties do not give consent for such DNA examination, then learned trial Court can draw adverse inference as per Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and shall proceed to decide the question of paternity on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. In this respect, Court can also take help from Quranic verses and Hadith of Holy Prophet.
WP 75322/22
Kaneez Fatima and 1 other Vs Senior CIvil Judge etc
Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq
15-05-2024
2024 LHC 2358
Muslim law, Marriage with pregnant woman not void or illegal.*_
_Plea that husband was not aware of pregnancy at the time of marriage was not tenable because pregnancy could not be concealed specially when it was five months old, hence such marriage was not void or illegal. Apart from it the husband had accepted pregnancy and marriage. When child was born four months after the marriage, husband had continued with such marriage for 4 & 1/2 years and gave his name to child. Held that when husband had divorced his wife after 4 & 1/2 years, he could not refuse to pay maintenance to wife on the grounds that marriage was void and child was not his child._
_Case :_
_*Amina Vs. Hassan Koya*_
_Citation :_
_*2003 Cri LJ 2540 (SC):*_
_*2003 (7) SRJ 216*_
----- Christian Divorce and Grounds for Divorce -----
A divorce cannot be applied for until a couple has been married for at least one year. Divorce proceedings are started by filing a divorce petition at court.
There is only one legal ground for divorce, which is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The person who starts proceedings, (called the Petitioner) must prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by establishing one of the following five facts:
Adultery
Unreasonable behaviour
Desertion
2 years separation with consent
5 years separation (no consent required)
Adultery
You must prove that your spouse has had s*xual in*******se with another person of the opposite s*x and that you find it intolerable to live with your spouse. If a relationship short of s*xual in*******se has taken place or it would be difficult to prove adultery, it is suggested that the unreasonable behaviour ground is used instead. This should prevent difficulties and delays later on.
You can name the other person involved as a co-respondent but we strongly advise against doing so. Naming a co-respondent can not only make your relationship with your spouse more acrimonious, but can also lead to delays later on in the proceedings if the co-respondent refuses to sign papers admitting the adultery. Adultery can be used as the basis for a divorce petition whether you and your spouse are still living together or have separated. Not more than six months must have elapsed since you became aware of the adultery before the petition is sent to the court, unless the adultery is continuing.
Importantly, you cannot petition for divorce on the grounds of your own adultery. Your spouse could divorce you on these grounds or you will need to use one of the other grounds - most commonly unreasonable behaviour.
Unreasonable Behaviour
Unreasonable behaviour is now the most common fact on which to prove the ground for divorce in England and Wales.
You must show that your spouse has behaved in such a way that you cannot reasonably be expected to live with him or her. In an unreasonable behaviour petition, the petitioner sets out a number of allegations against the respondent. If the allegations are particularly serious, e.g. violence, then one or two allegations may suffice. If the allegations are relatively mild, for example, carelessness with money or devoting too much time towards a career, then five or six allegations may be required.
We strongly recommend trying to agree the contents of an unreasonable behaviour divorce petition with your spouse before issuing proceedings. This can be achieved directly between the two of you, if your relationship remains amicable, or via solicitors. Agreeing the contents of the divorce petition can prevent misunderstandings and avoid difficulties later on.
Desertion
This is where your spouse has deserted you for a continuous period of at least two years. This fact is very rarely used.
Two years separation with consent
You or your spouse can issue divorce proceedings if you have been separated for at least two years and the other party agrees to the divorce.
Five years separation without consent
If you and your spouse have been living apart for at least five years then either of you may issue divorce proceedings without the other party’s consent.
The Divorce Procedure
The vast majority of divorces are undefended. Most people will acknowledge that a marriage has broken down. Generally, who petitions whom and the 'fact' on which the divorce proceeds aren’t really of consequence when dealing with the other issues that arise on the breakdown of a marriage, such as financial matters and the issues affecting the children.
For more detailed information please see our divorce process guide.
How long will it take?
An undefended divorce will normally take between 4 – 6 months. However, it is often the case that the court will not finalise the divorce until financial matters have been resolved. It is therefore important to seek legal advice as early as possible.
If the procedure is undefended neither party has to attend court.
Do I need advocate?
Provided the divorce is uncontested, the procedure is extremely straightforward. We strongly suggest, however, that you receive the advice of advocate in relation to divorce proceedings as incorrect completion of the paperwork can lead to difficulties later on, particularly in relation to financial matters.
The court will not generally consider children or financial issues within divorce proceedings unless specifically requested to do so by one of the parties to the divorce. You will need to discuss with your solicitor whether any action needs to be taken in respect of children or financial matters.
▪️DIVORCE (طلاق) CASE LAWS 👇
Zubaida Khatoon V/S Administrator Union Council Uch Gillani (Lah.)
1996 MLD 1689.
S.7. Talaq pronounced by husband to wife thrice …. Right of revocation by husband……. Legality …. Withdrawal of notice of talaq by husband from Administrator, Union Council…. Validity …. Talaq pronounced by husband to wife thrice would become “Bain” and husband would have no right of its revocation as per injunctions laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah, relating to divorce and its revocation and to that extent provisions of S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would give its way to those injunctions as enshrined in the constitution.
1998 MLD 486. Mst. Rehmat Ara V/S Mehmoodul Hassan & another (Lah.)
S.7. Husband asserted that period of “Iddat” of 90 days must be counted from date of issuance of notice to Arbitration Council and not from the date of pronouncement of Talaq. Commencement of period “Iddat”… Talaq was validly given by husband on 9-6-1996 when the same was pronounced and period of “Iddat” of three months had expired on 9-9-1996 and talaq became final on said date. Withdrawal of talaq by husband on 21-10-1996 (after it had become final) was inconsequential and ineffective.
1998 MLD 85. Farah Khan V/S Tahir Hamid Khan & another (Lah.)
Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized in accordance with provisions of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 in Pakistan. Respondent divorced petitioner which was endorsed by Arbitration Council. Validity. Originally both petitioner and respondent were Pakistani citizens and after three years of marriage only respondent had acquired citizenship of USA. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would extend to whole of Pakistan and applied to all muslim citizens of Pakistan wherever they might be in terms of S.(2) of the Ordinance. Provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, could be invoked where one of the party to marriage was Muslim citizen of Pakistan. Even if it was presumed that Arbitration council had no jurisdiction to entertain notice of talaq given by respondent under provisions of S.7 Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, right of talaq vested in husband under Sharia had not been taken away from any Muslim, irrespective of the country to which he belonged. Despite restrictions contained in Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, husband’s right of talaq would prevail as given to him under Quranic injunctions. Divorce pronounced by respondent had, thus, taken effect under Islamic injunctions even if notice to Arbitration council intimating such talaq or subsequent proceedings taken in that regard and certificate issued by Arbitration council endorsing effectiveness of talaq, were ignored. Constitutional petition also suffered from laches which would not warrant interference by High court at such belated stage when talaq under Sharia had already become effective.
1998 MLD 1216. Abdullah V/S Mst. Shaheen & 2 Others (Pesh.DB)
S.2(v). Proviso ©️. Dissolution of marriage on ground of impotency of husband. Decree for dissolution of marriage was granted to wife by Family Court on ground of impotency of husband on only evidence furnished by Lady Doctor to the effect that h***n of the wife being intact, she was a virgin. According to settled medical and scientific phenomenon, factum of h***n being intact, was not a conclusive proof of virginity because h***n in certain cases is so flexible that it is not repertured by incideence of first delivery. Evidence on record indicated that husband and wife had tried to produce their own medical certificates by consulting Doctors themselves, but court had not referred same for examination which had shown touch of personal involvement of court. Better approach would have been to get the parties medically examined through court. Application filed by husband under proviso ©️ of S.2(v) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, was also not considered by Family Court before passing decree for dissolution of marriage on ground of impotency of husband. Family Court had acted without jursidiction and also had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it as Family Court could not pass decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of impotency of husband, unless on application of husband, he was required to satisfy the court within one year from the date of such order that he had ceased to be impotent. If husband so satisfies the court within such period qua the same woman involved, no decree for dissolution of marriage would be passed on ground of impotency. Judgement of Family Court was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh after complying with provisions of proviso ©️ of S.2(v) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.
NLR 2002 SD 161. Mst. Ambreen Shah V/S Chairman Union Council etc. (Lahore)
Pronouncement of triple talaq by husband. According to verse 230 of Surah Baqra of the Holy Quran, talaq becomes irrevocable. Husband cannot subsequently revoke such talaq.
PLD 2002 Lahore 518. Hamid Hameed Waris V/S Mrs. Tehseen
Divorce. If a husband announces divorce thrice to his wife, same becomes operative according to Hanafi Sect. (2) S.2(ix). Suit for dissolution of marriage. Oral pronouncement of divorce by husband to his wife. Husband not reducing such divorce in writing. Remedy of wife to get confirmed such oral divorce. Wife in such circumstances had no other option, but to approach the Court.
PLD 2003 Peshawar 169.Fazli-e-Subhan V/S Sabereen & 3 Others (DB)
S.7 & 8. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had abolished the practice of disapproved form of :Talaq" and mode prescribed in the ordinance was that of a "Talaq-e-Ahsan" and by the ordinance it had been made mandatory that the notice of "Talaq" would be effected only if efforts of reconciliation would fail. Law prevailing previous to the enforcement of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had made it obligatory for the couples divorced by any mode of "Talaq" other than "Talaq-e-Ahsan" not to re-marry each other again, unless wife married another man who died or divorced her after actual consummation and she married her first husband after period of "Iddat". Before re-marriage parties had to prove that bar to their marriage was removed by intermediate marriage, consummation and dissolution, otherwise their marriage was not considered valid. Mode of "Talaq" effected under provisions of the 1961 Ordinance being almost that of "Talaq-e-Ahsan, the couples could re-marry without any intervening marriage except where they had been divorced thrice and the third divorce had become effective and in that case they could not re-marry without an intervening marriage. Plain reading of S.7 of the 1961 Ordinance, though had implied that all kinds of "Talaq" had been made revocable without an intervening marriage and could be that its repugnancy to such extent could validly be agitated on the touchstone of Quranic behest and the traditions of Holy Prophet (p.b..u.h.) but neither vires of said S.7 had been challenged nor matter raised in case pertained to all kinds of "Talaqs"-- Matter, in the present case, pertained to "Talaq" obtained by wife through Court decree in shape of Khula".
NLR 2004 SD 190. Shoukat Ali & another V/S The State (FSC).
S.10 Zina Ord. S.7(I) Muslim F.L.Ord.1961, Talaq pronounced by husband in accordance with requirements of Shariah without following the procedure laid down in S.7 would be valid pronouncement of Talaq. Failure to follow procedure laid down in S.7 may entail punishment but would not invalidate Talaq which is conscious and willful pronouncement of Talaq with intention to release wife from marriage bond. CONVICTION SET-ASIDE.
PLD 2004 Lahore 77.Mst. Nazir Fatima Nazim Union Council
S.5 & Schedule Family Courts Act 1964. One of the conditions of the marriage between parties was that husband had delegated the right do divorce wife and try to that effect was made in column No.18 of Nikahnama. Wife in exercise of said right pronounced divorce upon herslef for her husband and a notice was sent to Nazim Union Council concerned. Nazim had intimated wife that husband being not ready to pronounce divorce, wife could approach the court as he could not grant Khula and Nazim sent the case to the Family Court. Nazim was oblivious of legal position as right of divorce could be lawfully delegated by husband to wife and that had happened in the present case and notice was sent by wife in compliance with the terms of S. 7 & 8 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Ninety days prescribed period having expired after receipt of notice issued by wife and reconciliation being not possible between the parties, law as prescribed in S.7(3) & 8 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 would have in course. Nazim would issue requisite document regarding receipt of notice and failure of reconciliation within prescribed time.
PLD 2004 Lahore 316. Mian Arif Mehmood V/S Mst. Tanvir Fatima & another
S.7(3) & (5) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. Divorce pronounced by the husband upon the wife having not been revoked, had become effective after the expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of notice by the Nazim/Chairman Arbitration Council in view of S.7(3). PETITION PARTLY ALLOWED.
PLD 2004 Lahore 588.Nasrullah V/S District Judge Mianwali
S.5 West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 & Schedule. Suit for recovery of value of dowry articles and compensation for divorce. Suit for recovery of compensation for divorce filed by wife was resisted by husband on ground that Family Court had no jurisdiction to grant that relief. Husband had claimed that he had divorced the lady because of her bad character. Evidence on record had shown that husband had made false accusation against the lady as he had no evidence to offer for the same. No particulars were given as to how he had accused the lady to be of a bad character. Divorce, in circumstances was pronounced by husband wtihout giving any reason against the lady. Schedule appended to West Pakistan Family Courts Act was amended and item No.9 was added to the effect "Personal property and belonging of a wife" which by all means vested the lady with a right to bring an action against the husband to claim compensation for divorce pronounced upon her without any justification. Husband became indebted to the lady in the said amount and moment said condition became operative. Even if such debt was conditional or contingent, would fall within the meaning of actionable claim. Claim of the lady to said amount accruing to her upon an unjustified divorce, by all means was a property and fell within item 9 of Schedule read with S.5 of West Pakistan Family Act, 1964. Appellate court, in circumstances had not acted without lawful authority while decreeing said claim of respondent. PETITION DISMISSED.
PLD 2006 SC 457.Mst. Farah Naz V/S Judge Family Court Sahiwal
S.5 Family Courts Act, 1964. Plea of oral divorce. Validity. Husband was required to send notice of divorce to Arbitration Council under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and also to send copy of such notice to wife by registered post. No such proceedings having been ever conducted, oral allegation of Talaq would neither be effective nor valid and binding on wife, who was legally entitled to past maintenance.
PLJ 2008 Sh.C.(AJK) 55. Bilal Hamza Abbasi V/S Wazir Muhammad & another
Specific mode for dissolution of marriage --- Divorce pronounced on telephonic call. Islam does not prescribe any specific mode for dissolution of marriage. It is an overt act on the part of husband which could indicate a clear intention to annul the marriage to operate as a divorce. No particular form of words is prescribed for affecting a talaq. If the words of Talaq are clear express and very well understood as implying divorce, no proof of intention is required. It is also not necessary that divorce should be pronounced in the presence of wife or even addressed to her. Witness for the respondent told him that appellant tried to hand over the divorce deed to him but he refused to receive the same. Held: Appellant had pronounced talaq through telephonic call by producing cogent, sufficient and reliable evidence. No any non-reading or misreading of the evidence on the part of Family Court. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2009 MLD 1478. Ambreen Afshan V/S Mrs. Idrees Qazu (Lahore)
S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ord. 1961. Divorce--Effectiveness---Husband administered the divorce and notified the same to Chairman of Arbitration/Union Council whereupon certain proceedings were taken and ultimately a certificate for the effectiveness of divorce was issued through the impugned order. Wife was well aware of the fact that husband had pronounced divorce to her for which consequential proceedings before the Arbitration/Union Council had also been taken. Father of the wife had been pursuing the matter before Arbitration Council. Case of the wife who had challenged effectiveness of the divorce was that the submission of divorce deed with a notice before the Arbitration Council could not ipso facto, operate and result into the dissolution of marriage. In the present case it could not be disputed that the period much beyond 90 days had expired from the date of notice of the divorce when impugned certificate of its effectiveness was issued, in the circumstances, especially keeping in view all the relevant facts of service of notice on the Chairman Union Council, the initiation of the proceedings by the Arbitration Council, the repeated appearance of father of the wife who was holding a power of attorney on her behalf in those proceedings and actual knowledge of the wife about the pendency and fact of those proceedings, divorce and its pronouncement had become effective. Failure to send a notice to the Chairman of the Arbitration Council would not render the divorce in-effective in Shariah. Effect of pronouncement of divorce in Shariah would not justify interference with impugned order nor would warrant exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner/wife under Art.199
S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance
Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAKIA FAROOQ
Side Opponent : CHARIMAN, UNION COUNCIL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----S. 7---Legality of Talaq and certificate that Talaq had become effective--Chairman, Arbitration Council could neither decide the question of legality of Talaq claimed to have been pronounced by the husband nor could he issue certificate that divorce had become effective.
Citation Name : 1990 MLD 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : EHSAN-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : SHAHNAZ BEGUM
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7---Talaq---Period of iddat in absence of resumption of marital ties---When notice of Talaq was served on behalf of husband to the Chairman concerned, and there was no resumption of marital ties within the period of ninety days, the period of iddat would be deemed to have coincided with the said ninety days.
Citation Name : 1990 CLC 1683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH BANDA
Side Opponent : KHURSHIDD BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7(3)---Talaq pronounced thrice in one sitting becomes effective immediately and in such eventuality, the question of its revocation does not arise.
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MNHAMMAD DIN
Side Opponent : SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA, DIVISION, SARGODHA
---Ss. 5, 7 & 8--Husband's right of divorce--Restrictions--Column 19 in Nikahnama--Object--When a line was drawn in space against Col. No.19 in Nikahnama provided for mentioning restriction, if any, on right of husband to divorce, that would mean that parties at time of Nikah did not agree to put restriction on right of husband to divorce--Such fact alone, held, would not advance case of husband that wife would not be entitled to recover anything from him inasmuch as Nikah was nothing but an agreement between parties--No bar in law exists for the parties to enter into another agreement restricting right of divorce of husband,
Citation Name : 1989 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KANIZ FATIMA
Side Opponent : WALI MUHAMMAD
Ss.7 & 8??Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2?A, 8, 199 & Sched. I, Part III??Provisions of Ss.7 & 8, Muslim ?Family Laws Ordinance are not repugnant to the basic concepts of Islam and constitute valid subsisting law??High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam in the context of Art.2?A of the Constitution (1973)??Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having been incorporated in the First Sched., Part III of the Constitution, same was exempted from operation of Art. 8(1) & (2) of Constitution-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having become a part of the Constitution, High Court has no jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution to declare any law which is protected under the Constitution to be invalid being repugnant to Injunctions of Islam??High Court, being a creation of the Constitution, is to make adjudication strictly in accordance with the Constitution and thus cannot undertake the job of declaring any par
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAILA GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Side Opponent : Rai GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 7--Talaq--Wife not residing within territorial jurisdiction of Arbitration Council, Chairman of which dealt with notice of Talaq--Certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq upon wife by husband, issued by said Chairman, held, was coram non judice and nullity in eye of law--Husband had categorically admitted that he never divorced his wife--Talaqnama purported to have been executed and signed by husband was a forged and fake document--Father of husband had been continuously exerting pressure on wife and husband to dissolve their marriage-Father of husband falsely involved the couple as also parents of wife in various criminal and civil cases--Genuineness of divorce deed was, therefore, doubtful and its voluntary character was not proved--Divorce deed purported to have been issued by husband was thus declared as a forged and fake document and certificate of divorce held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Citation Name : 1988 PLD 498 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAISTA ARSHI
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE, WARD NO. 48 LAHORE
S. 7--Divorce--Husband executed Talaqnama divorcing wife but before the expiry of 90 days and before the "Talaq" could become effective in terms of S.7(3) he intimated the Chairman that he wanted, rather he had withdrawn the notice of "Talaq"--Talaq, whether had become complete and binding and could not be revoked to make it a farce" according to Hanfi Fiqah before the intimation by husband to the Chairman.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Service of notice of divorce--Issue not framed by Court-Effect--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife--Wife taking plea that she having been divorced as a result of agreement and oath mentioned in divorce deed, such suit was not maintainable--While accepting fact of divorce, Trial Court decreed suit of husband for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that wife had failed to prove service of notice of divorce on husband--No issue on question of fact relating to sending of notice to Union Committee by wife--Wife, held, was prejudiced relating to defence against suit for restitution conjugal rights--Petitioner, on account of wrong issue had been denied due opportunity of defence in suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 2061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MANZOOR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, UNION COUNCIL JALAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUJRANWALA
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Talaq--Petitioner after divorcing his wife by sending written divorce to her and Chairman, Arbitration Council failed to appear before Chairman to substantiate fact whether in fact he had pronounced Talaq upon his wife or not-Chairman, held, was justified in law in consigning proceedings before him to the record.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 1496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 Ss. 7(1) & 8--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491--Talaq in the nature of Mubarat--Habeas corpus petition for--Whether irrevocable-- Detenue admitting her marriage with petitioner and wishing to go with him--Detenue's previous marriage with one 'B' allegedly subsisting as no Talaq from 'B' effected--Offence of Bigamy and Zina allegedly committed--Court on enquiry, finding performance of marriage of detenue with 'B' as Vatta in lieu of which sister of 'B' married to brother of detenue--Later relations between 'B' and detenue becoming strained and both marriages were decided to be mutually dissolved-Divorce-deed executed--'B' admitting ex*****on of divorce-deed--Detenue believing to be divorced under mutual agreement, contracting second marriage with petitioner- -Talaq by mutual agreement, held, was in nature of Mubarat and had become irrevocable from date of-its ex*****on and provision of revocation in S. 7 of Family Laws Ordinance was inapplicable in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA KHATOON
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSUF
---S.2--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Khula'-- Relations between parties becoming strained within a period of four years of marital life to the extent that they could not live happily together--Wife not only was beaten and thrown out from house of husband on one or two occasions but also character of her husband was bad and insisting on her to lead immoral life--Observations of Appellate Court that such fact could be hardly termed as habitual cruelty or would not be taken into consideration for purpose of Khula', held, were not proper--Case remanded to Appellate Court for disposal after considering plea of Khula' and satisfying its conscience that wife, if forced to live with husband would not be observing limits prescribed by God, and after fixing benefits, if any, to be returned by wife to her husband as consideration of Khula'.
Citation Name : 1987 PLD 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : PIR BAKHSH
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD
S. 7 & Sched.--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula--Contention of husband that wife was not entitled to succeed in obtaining decree from Judge, Family Court for dissolution of marriage as she had not been able to prove her allegations against him on the basis of any independent evidence inasmuch as the only witness examined by her was her own brother-Held, such contention was not capable of leading to interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction because there was no legal bar in the evidence of a close relation being accepted in proof of a certain fact--Judge Family Court had the requisite power and such acceptance of evidence could not be considered to be an act without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Side Opponent : SABO
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7--Khula--Wife having developed hatred against husband on account of fact that he compelled her to convert her sect--Held, spouses, could not lead their matrimonial life within limits prescribed by Allah--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula not interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1986 MLD 2569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHER KHATOON
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULXAN
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7(1)--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S,5--Notice of Talaq--Non-giving of--Effect--Where husband did not give notice of Talaq to Chairman and filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights within 90 days of alleged pronouncement of Talaq, such divorce, held, would be deemed to have been revoked by husband.
Citation Name : 1986 CLC 1722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL
--S.21--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss. 7 & 8- Dissolution of marriage--K hula -Return of benefits by wife—Determination of such benefits--Chairman of Union Council cannot go behind decree granted by Family Court--Chairman, after dissolution of marriage by Family Court, has to proceed in accordance with provisions of S.21 of the Act of 1964--Chairman is not expected to adjudicate upon liability of wife to return benefits to husband and in case of failure of reconciliation proceedings cannot treat decree as ineffective on rights of the parties.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 415 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ
Side Opponent : PARVEEN AKHTAR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S.7--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S.7--Dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula--Wife seeking divorce, inter alia on ground of hatred towards husband--Five out of seven issues decided against wife--Such failure on her part to prove various issues in suit, held, did not necessarily mean that admitted rift between parties was w bout any cause because without cause there would not have been rift and parties would have been living together.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1985 PLD 319 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZIKRIA KHAN
Side Opponent : AFTAB ALI KHAN
S. 7-Divprce-Object, scope and application of -- S 7-Divorce-Whether divorce, after expiry of ninety days from date of receipt of notice of Talaq by Chairman, Union Council becomes effective-Whether Chairman is vested with authority to suspend its operation and annul divorce-Non-supply of copy of notice of Talaq to wife- -Effect.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALEEMA BIBI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
---S.5--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Divorce--Husband divorcing wife--Chairman Arbitration Council issuing a certificate making divorce effective and wife on basis of such certificate entering into second marriage and having children from second husband--Husband obtaining a decree of subsistence of conjugal rights from family Court and appellate Court--Courts while granting decree for conjugal rights leaning heavily against wife on ground that she had not produced witnesses whose names appeared on Talaqnama--Divorce sent to wife neither written ins her presence nor signed by husband or witnesses in her presence-Husband not denying his signature on Talaqnama in Examination-in-Chie; but doing so in cross-examination--Names of witnesses on Talaqnama not persons of her choice and not known to her-- Producing those persons witnesses in evidence, therefore, was too much and decision of Courts deciding issues against wife proceeded on irrelevant consideration in circumstances--Basic approach of two Courts below incorrect and leading to untenable conclusions--Courts below could have easily resorted to comparing signatures of respondent husband on Talaqnama with his admitted signatures on his plaint in suit for restitution of conjugal rights, written statement in suit for divorce and power-of-attorney, no fetters placed on powers of Court to adopt such a procedure in its persuit to find truth--Court could proceed on premises that ever procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition found against it law--Court in such circumstances cannot and should not sit like a distant spectator to witness a legal battle being fought before it by two adversaries--Court to exercise its own powers to prevent course of justice being deflected from its true path where circumstances so demand--Omission on part of Courts below, held, causing grave miscarriage of justice and reflecting adversely on future of wife as well as her children--Relief of restitution, of conjugal rights which rested in discretion of Court could not justifiably be granted to husband in circumstances--Court as Court of equity in its conscience could not compel husband to share bed and cohabit with her former husband when she had remarried with another person and had children from him--Orders of Courts below set aside and case remanded to District Judge for re-examining matter in appeal and resolving controvers in accordance with law and observations made by High Court.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASIR SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN
---- S. 7-Talaq-Notice-Once ex*****on of divorce deed proved talaq, held, became effective after expiry of ninety days even if notice not served upon Chairman concerned.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 3330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAZIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ROSHAN
----S. 7-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Muhammadan Law-Khula-Wife filing suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and that husband being of a bad character had established illicit relations with his own brother's wife-Trial Court rejecting application of wife on grounds that no convincing evidence to prove allegation$ was forthcoming-Trial Court failing to take account of all circumstances and effect of allegations made, which normally led to a state of affairs where it would be difficult for spouses to live together within limits prescribed by Allah-Application of principle of Khula' on these grounds, held, required to be taken into account and could not be brushed aside simply for failure of wife to produce convincing evidence about cruelty etc.-- Order of Appellate Court for not taking into account the crucial controversy, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.--Provisional Constitution. Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.-[Khula].
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHUHAR
Side Opponent : GHULAM FATIMA
S. 7-Watta marriage-Divorce from both sides-Pronouncement of talaq by husband without notice to Chairman, Union Council us required by S. 7-Husband never revoked talaq expressly or otherwise-Talaq determined and separation by mutual consent-Subsequent conduct of husband sufficiently rebutting presumption that omission to give notice to Chairman, Union Council as required under S. 7, revokes talaq impleadly-Held, main object of S. 7 to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by talaq pronounced by husband unilaterally not defeated by non-giving of notice under S. 7 or 7(1) and did not render talaq ineffective in circumstances-Second marriage by divorcee after expiry of period of iddat was valid and child out of such wedlock legitimate.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM FATIMA
Side Opponent : SAT BHARAI
---S. 7-Divorce deed-No formality for ex*****on of divorce deed or a notice or divorce prescribed-Mere non-observance of any formality would not denude deed of its genuineness-Execution or of divorce deed proved by two marginal witnesses-Divorce deed, held, cannot be regarded as a mere fabrication.
Citation Name : 1984 MLD 464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AKBLAQ AHMAD
Side Opponent : KISHWITR SULTANA
---Art.9--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Compromise application signed by parties and counsel placed on record--Stating that case be remanded for dissolving marriage on basis of Khula) by determining benefits if any received and directing return thereof--In view of compromise both judgments of lower Courts set aside and suit remitted for determination of benefits, if any, received--Marriage as per compromise stood dissolved.
Citation Name : 1984 PCRLJ 1352 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMANULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : EIDAT SHAH
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 --S. 7---Expiry of period of 90 days subsequent to pronouncement of talaq-Notice to Chairman--Ineffectiveness of divorce-Subsequent to pronouncement of talaq on expiry of period of 90 days, and in absence of any act or conduct on part of husband indicating revocation of his intention or taking her back, failure alone on part of husband to give notice of same to Chairman under S. 7(1), held, does not render divorce as ineffective, would only make husband liable to penalty.
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHIDA KHAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL REHIM KHAN
Ss. 7 & 8--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S. 7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9-Dissolution of marriage-Findings of District Judge and Family Court on question of cruelty and non-maintenance by husband based upon appreciation of evidence-High Court, even if not agreeing with such findings, held, could not interfere in constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1983 PLD 549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RASHIDAN BIBI
Side Opponent : BASHIR AHMAD
Ss. 7 & 8-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Woman stating categorically that she would prefer to be shot dead rather to go to live with husband and willing to forego ail her claims in case her marriage dissolved on basis of Khula-Held, sufficient to . satisfy Court that two parties could certainly not live together within limits prescribed by God and woman entitled to get marriage dissolved on basis of Khula`.-[Khula]
Citation Name : 1982 PLD 825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQU
Side Opponent : AHMAD YAR
S. 7-Talak-Notice-Absence of notice, held, violation of S. 7 of Ordinance only-Muhammadan Law-Question whether provision of S. 7 repugnant to Qur'an and Sunnah-To be looked into by, Federal Shariat Court-Held, talak, if pronounced, cannot, for want of notice, be claimed to be ineffective.-[Muhammadan Law]
Citation Name : 1982 PLD 532 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MASOOD KHAN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL WAH
S. 7-Divorce-Divorce not routed through procedure contemplated by S. 7 of Ordinance, held, does not become effective.
Citation Name : 1982 PCRLJ 625 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
-- S. 7 (3)-Talaq, effectiveness of-Wife going back to house of her husband after notice of talaq written by her husband and living in his house as his wife and giving birth to a son also-None of parties taking part in reconciliation proceedings---Mere fact that accused-husband sent notice of talaq to Chairman of Union Council and a certificate of effectiveness of talaq issued by Chairman, held, would not be sufficient to prove that matrimonial ties between accused-husband and wife came to an end.
Citation Name : 1981 PCRLJ 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL BAQI
Side Opponent : NAYARA SIDDIQI
-----S. 488 and Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Dissolution of marriage-Maintenance-Marriage between parties dissolved by order of Court---Wife held not entitled to maintenance after date of passing of such order-Prompt dower having not been paid to wife, held further, could stay away from husband and be liable to be maintained till date of dissolution of marriage and thereafter for the period of Iddat (three months).[Maintenance].
Citation Name : 1980 CLC 1635 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFIZ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE NO. 5, SHEIKHUPURA
S. 7 (3)-Arbitration Council. jurisdiction of-Arbitration Council passing decree for money in lieu of dowry-Such decree, held, without jurisdiction-Pray course for Arbitration Council to leave such matte, to be decided by proper forums---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. [Jurisdiction]
Citation Name : 1980 PCRLJ 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD LATIF
Side Opponent : MST. HANIFAN BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 -- S. 7 (1) & (3)-Talaq-S. 7(1) of Ordinance takes into account all .forms of talaq and no particular form outside its purview-Subsection (3) of S. 7 having precluded ialaq from- being effective for a certain period within such period marital status of parties, held, remains unchanged. -(Muhammadan Law].
Citation Name : 1979 PLD 36 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZARINA BIBI
Side Opponent : MEHBOOB
S. 7-Talaq, notice of-Notice of talaq sent by husband to Secretary, Union Council-Cannot be acted upon by Secretary of Council in absence of its Chairman and Secretary's order that talaq had become effective due to expiry of time provided in notice without lawful authority and of no legal effect.-[ Muhammadan Law-Divorce).
Citation Name : 1979 PLD 241 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AIYSHA YASMIEN ABBASI
Side Opponent : MAQBOOL HUSSAIN QURESHI
S. 8 read with S. 7-Dissolution of marriage-Khula'-Mubaraa' at Notice of Talaq-Dissolution of marriage by way of Khula' or Mubara'at-Irrevocable in so far as husband's authority to revoke concerned-Husband and wife having mutually agreed in writing to dissolve their marriage and sending a copy of agreement to Secretary/ Chairman of Union Council concerned with request to dissolve marriage and to complete formalities-Communication thus sent to Union Council, held, a valid notice under S. 8 read with S. 7-Contention of proceedings under S. 7 being not necessitated in such case, however, repelled.-[Muhammadan Law-Khula'-Divorced.
Citation Name : 1978 PLD 701 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIHA BIBI
Side Opponent : HASSAN DIN
__ Ss. 7 & 8 read with West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S. 8 & Sched. Jurisdiction Sections 7 & 8 of Ordinance VIII of 1961-Applicable only when parties wish to dissolve marriage otherwise than through intervention of Family Court last do not oust jurisdiction of Family Courts conferred en them by S. 5 of Act ###V of 1964 read with Schedule, in respect of dissolution of marriage-Decree of Family Court dissolving marriage, held, not without jurisdiction.- [Jurisdiction]
Citation Name : 1978 PLD 328 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHMMAD NAWAZ
Side Opponent : MST. FAIZ ELAHI
So. 7(1), (3) & 8 --Dissolution of marriage through khula' by agreement of both spouses-Does not strictly fall under S.7(1) but under' S. 8--Such khula' not revocable-Application for cancellation or revocation to Chairman and conduct of proceedings and issue of cancellation certificate by him-Held, without competence and without lawful-authority-Doubt on question of interpretation of S 8 read with S. 7(3)-To be resolved in favour of interpretation which is in accord with and advances Islamic Law and philosophy.-[Divorce-Khula'].S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance
Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAKIA FAROOQ
Side Opponent : CHARIMAN, UNION COUNCIL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ----S. 7---Legality of Talaq and certificate that Talaq had become effective--Chairman, Arbitration Council could neither decide the question of legality of Talaq claimed to have been pronounced by the husband nor could he issue certificate that divorce had become effective.
Citation Name : 1990 MLD 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : EHSAN-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : SHAHNAZ BEGUM
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7---Talaq---Period of iddat in absence of resumption of marital ties---When notice of Talaq was served on behalf of husband to the Chairman concerned, and there was no resumption of marital ties within the period of ninety days, the period of iddat would be deemed to have coincided with the said ninety days.
Citation Name : 1990 CLC 1683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH BANDA
Side Opponent : KHURSHIDD BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7(3)---Talaq pronounced thrice in one sitting becomes effective immediately and in such eventuality, the question of its revocation does not arise.
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MNHAMMAD DIN
Side Opponent : SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA, DIVISION, SARGODHA
---Ss. 5, 7 & 8--Husband's right of divorce--Restrictions--Column 19 in Nikahnama--Object--When a line was drawn in space against Col. No.19 in Nikahnama provided for mentioning restriction, if any, on right of husband to divorce, that would mean that parties at time of Nikah did not agree to put restriction on right of husband to divorce--Such fact alone, held, would not advance case of husband that wife would not be entitled to recover anything from him inasmuch as Nikah was nothing but an agreement between parties--No bar in law exists for the parties to enter into another agreement restricting right of divorce of husband,
Citation Name : 1989 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KANIZ FATIMA
Side Opponent : WALI MUHAMMAD
Ss.7 & 8??Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2?A, 8, 199 & Sched. I, Part III??Provisions of Ss.7 & 8, Muslim ?Family Laws Ordinance are not repugnant to the basic concepts of Islam and constitute valid subsisting law??High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as repugnant to Injunctions of Islam in the context of Art.2?A of the Constitution (1973)??Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having been incorporated in the First Sched., Part III of the Constitution, same was exempted from operation of Art. 8(1) & (2) of Constitution-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, having become a part of the Constitution, High Court has no jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution to declare any law which is protected under the Constitution to be invalid being repugnant to Injunctions of Islam??High Court, being a creation of the Constitution, is to make adjudication strictly in accordance with the Constitution and thus cannot undertake the job of declaring any par
Citation Name : 1989 MLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAILA GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Side Opponent : Rai GAUHAR SHAHZAD KHARAL
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S. 7--Talaq--Wife not residing within territorial jurisdiction of Arbitration Council, Chairman of which dealt with notice of Talaq--Certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq upon wife by husband, issued by said Chairman, held, was coram non judice and nullity in eye of law--Husband had categorically admitted that he never divorced his wife--Talaqnama purported to have been executed and signed by husband was a forged and fake document--Father of husband had been continuously exerting pressure on wife and husband to dissolve their marriage-Father of husband falsely involved the couple as also parents of wife in various criminal and civil cases--Genuineness of divorce deed was, therefore, doubtful and its voluntary character was not proved--Divorce deed purported to have been issued by husband was thus declared as a forged and fake document and certificate of divorce held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Citation Name : 1988 PLD 498 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAISTA ARSHI
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE, WARD NO. 48 LAHORE
S. 7--Divorce--Husband executed Talaqnama divorcing wife but before the expiry of 90 days and before the "Talaq" could become effective in terms of S.7(3) he intimated the Chairman that he wanted, rather he had withdrawn the notice of "Talaq"--Talaq, whether had become complete and binding and could not be revoked to make it a farce" according to Hanfi Fiqah before the intimation by husband to the Chairman.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Service of notice of divorce--Issue not framed by Court-Effect--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife--Wife taking plea that she having been divorced as a result of agreement and oath mentioned in divorce deed, such suit was not maintainable--While accepting fact of divorce, Trial Court decreed suit of husband for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that wife had failed to prove service of notice of divorce on husband--No issue on question of fact relating to sending of notice to Union Committee by wife--Wife, held, was prejudiced relating to defence against suit for restitution conjugal rights--Petitioner, on account of wrong issue had been denied due opportunity of defence in suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Citation Name : 1988 CLC 2061 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MANZOOR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, UNION COUNCIL JALAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUJRANWALA
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Talaq--Petitioner after divorcing his wife by sending written divorce to her and Chairman, Arbitration Council failed to appear before Chairman to substantiate fact whether in fact he had pronounced Talaq upon his wife or not-Chairman, held, was justified in law in consigning proceedings before him to the record.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 1496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ AHMAD
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 Ss. 7(1) & 8--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491--Talaq in the nature of Mubarat--Habeas corpus petition for--Whether irrevocable-- Detenue admitting her marriage with petitioner and wishing to go with him--Detenue's previous marriage with one 'B' allegedly subsisting as no Talaq from 'B' effected--Offence of Bigamy and Zina allegedly committed--Court on enquiry, finding performance of marriage of detenue with 'B' as Vatta in lieu of which sister of 'B' married to brother of detenue--Later relations between 'B' and detenue becoming strained and both marriages were decided to be mutually dissolved-Divorce-deed executed--'B' admitting ex*****on of divorce-deed--Detenue believing to be divorced under mutual agreement, contracting second marriage with petitioner- -Talaq by mutual agreement, held, was in nature of Mubarat and had become irrevocable from date of-its ex*****on and provision of revocation in S. 7 of Family Laws Ordinance was inapplicable in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1987 CLC 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : LAI DIN
Side Opponent : ZEENAT BIBI
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S. 7--Divorce--Proof--Neither any witness in whose presence alleged three divorces were pronounced upon lady was present nor any formal deed of Talaqnama was scribed--No indication of any oral or written notice of divorce--Divorce alleged to have been pronounced upon lady, held, was not adequately proved in circumstances--Mere entry of alleged divorce made by petition-writer in his register who did not know parties personally and such entry made at behest of some unidentified person, would not prove divorce.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA KHATOON
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSUF
---S.2--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7--Khula'-- Relations between parties becoming strained within a period of four years of marital life to the extent that they could not live happily together--Wife not only was beaten and thrown out from house of husband on one or two occasions but also character of her husband was bad and insisting on her to lead immoral life--Observations of Appellate Court that such fact could be hardly termed as habitual cruelty or would not be taken into consideration for purpose of Khula', held, were not proper--Case remanded to Appellate Court for disposal after considering plea of Khula' and satisfying its conscience that wife, if forced to live with husband would not be observing limits prescribed by God, and after fixing benefits, if any, to be returned by wife to her husband as consideration of Khula'.
Citation Name : 1987 PLD 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : PIR BAKHSH
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD
S. 7 & Sched.--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula--Contention of husband that wife was not entitled to succeed in obtaining decree from Judge, Family Court for dissolution of marriage as she had not been able to prove her allegations against him on the basis of any independent evidence inasmuch as the only witness examined by her was her own brother-Held, such contention was not capable of leading to interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction because there was no legal bar in the evidence of a close relation being accepted in proof of a certain fact--Judge Family Court had the requisite power and such acceptance of evidence could not be considered to be an act without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1987 MLD 2549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Side Opponent : SABO
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7--Khula--Wife having developed hatred against husband on account of fact that he compelled her to convert her sect--Held, spouses, could not lead their matrimonial life within limits prescribed by Allah--Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula not interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Citation Name : 1986 MLD 2569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHER KHATOON
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULXAN
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 ---S.7(1)--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S,5--Notice of Talaq--Non-giving of--Effect--Where husband did not give notice of Talaq to Chairman and filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights within 90 days of alleged pronouncement of Talaq, such divorce, held, would be deemed to have been revoked by husband.
Citation Name : 1986 CLC 1722 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL
--S.21--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss. 7 & 8- Dissolution of marriage--K hula -Return of benefits by wife—Determination of such benefits--Chairman of Union Council cannot go behind decree granted by Family Court--Chairman, after dissolution of marriage by Family Court, has to proceed in accordance with provisions of S.21 of the Act of 1964--Chairman is not expected to adjudicate upon liability of wife to return benefits to husband and in case of failure of reconciliation proceedings cannot treat decree as ineffective on rights of the parties.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 415 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ
Side Opponent : PARVEEN AKHTAR
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 S.7--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S.7--Dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula--Wife seeking divorce, inter alia on ground of hatred towards husband--Five out of seven issues decided against wife--Such failure on her part to prove various issues in suit, held, did not necessarily mean that admitted rift between parties was w bout any cause because without cause there would not have been rift and parties would have been living together.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1985 PLD 319 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZIKRIA KHAN
Side Opponent : AFTAB ALI KHAN
S. 7-Divprce-Object, scope and application of -- S 7-Divorce-Whether divorce, after expiry of ninety days from date of receipt of notice of Talaq by Chairman, Union Council becomes effective-Whether Chairman is vested with authority to suspend its operation and annul divorce-Non-supply of copy of notice of Talaq to wife- -Effect.
Citation Name : 1985 CLC 1015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALEEMA BIBI
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD
---S.5--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7-Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Divorce--Husband divorcing wife--Chairman Arbitration Council issuing a certificate making divorce effective and wife on basis of such certificate entering into second marriage and having children from second husband--Husband obtaining a decree of subsistence of conjugal rights from family Court and appellate Court--Courts while granting decree for conjugal rights leaning heavily against wife on ground that she had not produced witnesses whose names appeared on Talaqnama--Divorce sent to wife neither written ins her presence nor signed by husband or witnesses in her presence-Husband not denying his signature on Talaqnama in Examination-in-Chie; but doing so in cross-examination--Names of witnesses on Talaqnama not persons of her choice and not known to her-- Producing those persons witnesses in evidence, therefore, was too much and decision of Courts deciding issues against wife proceeded on irrelevant consideration in circumstances--Basic approach of two Courts below incorrect and leading to untenable conclusions--Courts below could have easily resorted to comparing signatures of respondent husband on Talaqnama with his admitted signatures on his plaint in suit for restitution of conjugal rights, written statement in suit for divorce and power-of-attorney, no fetters placed on powers of Court to adopt such a procedure in its persuit to find truth--Court could proceed on premises that ever procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition found against it law--Court in such circumstances cannot and should not sit like a distant spectator to witness a legal battle being fought before it by two adversaries--Court to exercise its own powers to prevent course of justice being deflected from its true path where circumstances so demand--Omission on part of Courts below, held, causing grave miscarriage of justice and reflecting adversely on future of wife as well as her children--Relief of restitution, of conjugal rights which rested in discretion of Court could not justifiably be granted to husband in circumstances--Court as Court of equity in its conscience could not compel husband to share bed and cohabit with her former husband when she had remarried with another person and had children from him--Orders of Courts below set aside and case remanded to District Judge for re-examining matter in appeal and resolving controvers in accordance with law and observations made by High Court.
Citation Name : 1985 MLD 1179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT
---Ss. 6(5) & 7--Divorce--Effectiveness--Taiaq becomes effective after expiry of ninety days from date on which notice of Talaq issued by husband delivered to Chairman Union Council unless wife happens to be pregnant at time Talaq is pronounced and in that event Talaq would become effective at end of pregnancy--Effectiveness of Talaq, held, not dependent upon passing any order by Chairman or Deputy Commissioner--Husband remarrying after ninety days of delivering notice of Talaq to Chairman of Union Council--Chairman passing order that since husband had neither appeared before him nor nominated his representative to Arbitration Council--Talaq could not be declared effective--Order of Chairman, held, not tenable and proceedings of case pending against petitioner under S.6(5) of Ordinance for taking a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage declared to be without lawful authority.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASIR SIDDIQUE
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN
---- S. 7-Talaq-Notice-Once ex*****on of divorce deed proved talaq, held, became effective after expiry of ninety days even if notice not served upon Chairman concerned.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 3330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAZIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ROSHAN
----S. 7-Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7Muhammadan Law-Khula-Wife filing suit for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and that husband being of a bad character had established illicit relations with his own brother's wife-Trial Court rejecting application of wife on grounds that no convincing evidence to prove allegation$ was forthcoming-Trial Court failing to take account of all circumstances and effect of allegations made, which normally led to a state of affairs where it would be difficult for spouses to live together within limits prescribed by Allah-Application of principle of Khula' on these grounds, held, required to be taken into account and could not be brushed aside simply for failure of wife to produce convincing evidence about cruelty etc.-- Order of Appellate Court for not taking into account the crucial controversy, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.--Provisional Constitution. Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.-[Khula].
Citation Name : 1984 PLD 234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHUHAR
Side Opponent : GHULAM FATIMA
S. 7-Watta marriage-Divorce from both sides-Pronouncement of talaq by husband without notice to Chairman, Union Council us required by S. 7-Husband never revoked talaq expressly or otherwise-Talaq determined and separation by mutual consent-Subsequent conduct of husband sufficiently rebutting presumption that omission to give notice to Chairman, Union Council as required under S. 7, revokes talaq impleadly-Held, main object of S. 7 to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by talaq pronounced by husband unilaterally not defeated by non-giving of notice under S. 7 or 7(1) and did not render talaq ineffective in circumstances-Second marriage by divorcee after expiry of period of iddat was valid and child out of such wedlock legitimate.
Citation Name : 1984 CLC 869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM FATIMA
Side Opponent : SAT BHARAI
---S. 7-Divorce deed-No formality for
Chamber 22, Federal Block F8 Markaz
Islamabad
46300
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Dawood & Salman Law Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
