Abdul Khalique Bughio Legal Advisor

29/10/2022

S.406 PPC does not attract when it is business transaction or ingredient of entrustment is missing.

2017 YLR Note 10
2017 PCr LJ 133
2016 PCR LJ Note 132
2015 SCMR 1575
2014 P Cr LJ 39
2013 YLR 1678
2015 PCR LJ 576
2013 MLD 891
2011 SCMR 1614
PLD 2004 SC 785
PLD 2009 SC 427
2006 PCR LJ 1900

05/07/2022

2022 P Cr. L J Note 7

[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J

BHAGIYO KHAN and 6 others---Applicants

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Bail Application No. S-651 of 2020, decided on 8th February, 2021.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 452, 427, 114, 504, 506(ii), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, mischief, abettor present when offence was committed, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, rash and negligent act, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Record reflected that injured appeared before the doctor on the same date and they were also examined by the Investigating Officer wherein they had fully supported the case of prosecution---Accused were nominated in prompt FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the injured which allegation was also supported by medical evidence---Accused did not point out any mala fide on the part of complainant and the accused were seeking pre-arrest bail for which strong grounds were needed---Accused had failed to make out a case for confirmation of their bail, in circumstances---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was recalled and their pre-arrest bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Only tentative assessment was to be made at bail stage, whereas deeper appreciation was not permissible.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 452, 427, 114, 504, 506(ii), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, mischief, abettor present when offence was committed, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, rash and negligent act, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Case of co-accused persons was on different footings than the accused, as in the FIR the allegation against co-accused was of instigation and against other co-accused persons was of making aerial firing---Mashirnama of place of incident showed that no empties were recovered and they did not cause any injury to the witnesses---Co-accused persons had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, as such interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them was confirmed, in circumstances.

Shahbaz Khan Brohi for Applicants.

Mehfooz Ahmed Awan for the Complainant.

Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 2021.

ORDER

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.---Applicants Bhagio Khan, Saifal, Mohammad Ismail, Imtiaz Ali, Mohammad Ashfraf, Javed Ali and Mohammad Rafique all by caste Bangulani, seek their pre-arrest bail in Crime No.217/2020, registered at Police Station New Foujdari, for offence under sections 452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 337-H(2), 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Earlier the applicants were granted interim pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 7.11.2020, however later on the same was recalled vide order dated 12.12.2020.

2. As per FIR, the allegation against the applicant Bhagio Khan is that he caused hatchet blows to Muhammad Munawar, against Saifal is of instigation, against Muhammad Ismail and Imtiaz is of aerial firing, against Javed Ali is of causing lathi blow to the complainant and against Muhammad Rafique is of causing lathi blow to Mst. Waziran.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR was registered with false facts; that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the same is punishable up to 07 years; that there is conflict in between medical and ocular evidence; that initially case was disposed of under 'B' class however, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence; he further contended that mere registration of other FIRs is no ground for refusal of bail; that the enmity is admitted in the FIR; learned counsel prayed for confirmation of bail. In support of his contention, he relied on case of Rahim alias Rahmak and another v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 821) and Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 573).

4. Learned DPG duly assisted by Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that applicants are nominated in the FIR with specific role; that medical evidence is in support of ocular evidence; that abductee in Crime No.160/2020, Mst. Bakhtawar is still not recovered; all the applicants/ accused shared their common intention. They lastly submitted that no malafide or ulterior motive so also false implication has been pointed out by the applicants. He further submitted that applicants are influential persons and due to their influence this heinous crime is disposed of by police in 'B' class; however learned Magistrate took cognizance; they prayed that bail application of applicants may be dismissed. They relied on Muhammad Jahangir Khan and others v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 1270).

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.

6. This court vide order dated 18.1.2021 called report from S.S.P Kashmore alias Kandhkot S.S.P, Shikarpur, as regards to the criminal record of the applicants and as per compliance report of SSP, Shikarpur the applicants are involved in the following case:-

Criminal record of applicant/accused Bhagiyo Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under section

Police Station

Status

1.

110/2020

337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

2

145/2020

452, 147, 148, 506/2, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

3

160/2020

452, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

4

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148 and 337-H(2) P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of applicant/accused Saifal Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under section

Police Station

Status

1.

110/2020

337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

2

145/2020

452, 147, 148, 506/2, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

3

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148 and 337-H(2), P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of applicant/accused Javed Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under Section

Police Station

Status

1.

110/2020

337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

2

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148 and 337-H(2), P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of applicant/accused Imtiaz Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under Section

Police Station

Status

1.

110/2020

337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

2

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148 and 506/2, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of accused Muhammad Rafiq Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under Section

Police Station

Status

1

145/2020

452, 147, 148, 506/2, P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

2

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148, 337-H(2), P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of accused Muhammad Ismail Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under Section

Police Station

Status

1

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148, 337-H(2), P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

Criminal record of accused Muhammad Ashraf Banglani

S.No.

Crime No.

Under Section

Police Station

Status

1

217/2020

452, 324, 427, 114, 504, 506/2, 147, 148, 337-H(2), P.P.C.

New Foujdari

Challaned

7. The report submitted by Mr. Amjad Ahmed Shaikh, S.S.P Kashmore alias Kandhkot reveals that Bakhtawar Mughul obtained khulaa from the family court Shikarpur and applicant party initially threatened Mst. Bakhtarwar for her kidnapping/murder therefore she lodged an FIR Crime No.145/2020 at Police station Fojdari later on applicant party kidnapped the girl from the house of her brother and such FIR was registered bearing FIR No.160/2020 at Police Station Foujdari by Ahsan Ali, her brother. SSP, Kashmore alias Kandhkot in his inquiry report stated that on rejection of bail application by Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The applicants burnt house of the complainant of FIR No.160/2020 and the family of complainant party is now living in different District and are saving their lives from the hands of applicant. He further submitted that the applicants' party in collusion with investigation officer of the case namely ASI Zafar Chang attempted to manage FIR into 'B' class however, the learned court has taken the cognizance.

8. Record reflects that injured namely Munawar Ali, Sikandar Ali, Ghulam Sarwar and Mst. Waziran appeared before the doctor on the same date and they were also examined by the I.O wherein they have fully supported the case of prosecution. Applicants Bhagio, Muhammad Ashraf, Jawed Ali and Muhammad Rafique are nominated in prompt FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the injured which allegation is also supported by medical evidence. Learned counsel for the applicants not pointed out any mala fide on the part of complainant and the applicants are seeking pre arrest bail for which strong grounds are needed. It is well settled proposition of law that at bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made, whereas deeper appreciation is not permissible. Under these circumstances, applicants Bhagio, Muhammad Ashraf, Javed Ali and Muhammad Rafique have been failed to make out a case for confirmation of their bail. Resultantly, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them vide order dated 18.12.2020 is hereby recalled and their pre arrest bail application is dismissed.

9. The case of applicants Saifal, Muhammad Ismail and Imtiaz is on different footings as in the FIR the allegation against applicant Saifal is of instigation, against Muhammad Ismail and Imtiaz is of making aerial firing. The mashirnama of place of incident shows that no empties are recovered. They also not caused any injury to the PWs. Accordingly, they have made out a case for pre-arrest bail, as such interim pre-arrest bail already granted on 18.12.2020, is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.

JK/B-7/Sindh Order accordingly.

PakistanLawSite
Caselaw Search
Statutes Search
Courtwise Search
Citation Search
Advance Search
Case Law Search

Enter Keyword

Enter Court

Search
Latest Caselaws
MUNAWAR VS State
2022 YLR 198
(FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT)
KALIM ARSHAD KHAN VS PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR
2022 PLC(CS) 398
(PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)
Syed MUHAMMAD RAZA QAIM RIZVI VS State
2022 YLRN 7
(KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)
ZOHRA JABEEN VS FIRST WOMAN BANK
2022 PLC 1
(ISLAMABAD)
SALMAN KHAN VS State
2022 SCMR 515
(SUPREME-COURT)
Malik SARFRAZ VS State
2022 PCrLJ 762
(ISLAMABAD)
SAMAD PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division Chairman, Islamabad
2022 PTD 168
(KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)
SAIF UR REHMAN KHAN VS CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, NAB HEADQUARTER, ISLAMABAD
2022 CLD 413
(SUPREME-COURT)
BHAGIYO KHAN VS State
2022 PCrLJN 7
(KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)
KHADIM HUSSAIN VS State
2022 MLD 95
(KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)
Mst. KAMALAN BIBI VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer
2022 CLC 890
(LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)
Mst. SANA KHURSHEED VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
2022 PLD 346
(LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

05/07/2022

فیملی کورٹ یا اپیلیٹ کورٹ فہرست گواہان کی لسٹ میں ترمیم نہ کر سکتی ہے.
(2020 MLD 554).
فیملی کیس میں ضابطہ دیوانی یا قانون شہادت کا اطلاق نہ ہوتا ہے، اس لئے عورت بزریعہ اٹارنی، پیروی مقدمہ کر سکتی ہے، اور عورت کا خود بطورِ گواہ پیش ہونا ضروری نہ ہے.
(2019 YLR 1900).
فیملی ایکٹ کا اطلاق، مسلم اور غیر مسلم دونوں پر ہو گا.
(2010 YLR 2711).
(PLJ 2017 Lah 732).
عدالتِ اجراء ،نکاح نامہ میں درج، بیوی کی منقولہ جائیداد کو Attach نہ کر سکتی ہے.
(2016-SCMR-2170).
نکاح نامہ کی یہ شرط ،کہ خاوند بلاوجہ طلاق دینے کی صورت میں، اتنا معاوضہ ادا کرے گا، غیر قانونی ہے.
(2012 CLC 837).

05/07/2022

05/07/2022

MUHAMMAD ARIF

Versus

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-VIII, KARACHI WEST

نکاح کے بعد اگر رخصتی نہ ہو تو یہ شوہر کی طرف سے زیادتی تصور ہو گی ۔اور شوہر ایسی صورت میں بیوی کو تمام سابقہ پرچہ دینے کا پابند ہوگا

2020 YLR 1586

JUDGMENT
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition No.S-2342 of 2018, the Petitioner herein viz. Muhammad Arif son of Ali Asghar, has called in question judgment dated 30.08.2018 [Annexure 'A' to the Memo of Petition], passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-West, in Family Appeal No.101 of 2017 [Muhammad Arif v. Mst. Shahnaz], whereby, the 'judgment' and 'decree' both dated 16.09.2017, [Annexure 'E/3' to the Memo of Petition], passed in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], by the learned IXth Civil and Family Judge Karachi-West, were 'maintained' and consequently, Family Appeal No.101 of 2017, was dismissed, however, with no order as to cost. The prayer sought in the Memo of Petition [In short MoP], reads as follows:
i]. to set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8 at Karachi West in Family Appeal No.101 of 2017, and so also the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017, passed by learned IXth Family Judge at Karachi West in Family Suit No.153 of 2012 and hold that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance to the Respondent No.3.
ii]. To call for the record, paper and proceedings of the learned IXth Family Court at Karachi West in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 as well as the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8 at Karachi West in Family Appeal No.101 of 2017.
iii]. To grant such other reliefes as this Hon'ble Court being just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv]. To grant cost of the petition.
2. Resume of the facts forming the background of the instant Petition is that; the 'Nikah' of Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] namely Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman was performed with the Petitioner herein [Defendant], namely Muhammad Arif son of Ali Asghar on 24.12.1999, at Karachi, according to Muslims Personal Law against the 'dower amount' of Rs.30 000/- but Rukhsati, never took place.
3. Per assertions made in the plaint, at the wish and inducement of the Petitioner herein [Defendant] and his parents, 'Nikahnama' of such marriage was also registered, as it was much needed/required by the Petitioner, for arranging a house/residence from the Petitioner's employer viz. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad. As per pre-condition imposed by the employer, according to which, only a 'married employee' was eligible to apply and get a residential accommodate/ House/Plot in Islamabad, on the basis of a registered 'Nikahnama'.
4. The Petitioner herein [Defendant] succeeded in obtaining a residence/house from the employer but avoided to take the 'Rukhsati' of Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff]. Instead, the Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] and her other 'family members' were kept assured but on the basis of false hopes and promises. The Petitioner herein [Defendant], through 'lame excuses', such as; some time there is a winter season, sometime there is a 'summer season' and sometime, there is a 'holy month of Ramzan', 'Moharram' etc. etc. repeatedly delayed the 'Rukhsati', of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], in a very clever manner.
5. Later on, when the parents of Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] again asked the Petitioner herein [Defendant], to arrange 'Rukhstati' of their daughter namely Ms. Shahnaz then, also the Petitioner herein [Defendant], very cleverly, postponed the 'Rukhsati' of Respondent No.3 herein. Thereafter, about six months back, the father of the Petitioner herein [Defendant], came to Karachi, but for the purpose of attending a 'funeral ceremony' of a relative/brother-in-law. During such period, as per Petitioner's version, the Petitioner's father stayed at the house of a 'common relative'. During such stay at Karachi, he also met with the father Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff's] and, as asserted, he had assured for the arranging of 'Rukhsati' i.e. after 40 days but this time, as well, the Rukhsati of Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], as promised, could not take place. The Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] and her parents, on account of such continued 'breach of promises' and 'routine excuses', not only suffered 'mental agony', 'defamation' but also faced insult in brathery/closed and known relatives, who were not only making jokes but also they were then raising fingers for and on account of non-taking place of 'Rukhsati' of Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman since, 24.12.1999. According to Respondent No.3's stand, mother of Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] thereafter, also died/expired, as alleged, due to 'shocks'/'worries' caused to her and her family members by the Petitioner herein [Defendant] and his parents, that is to say, since, 24.12.1999, when 'NIKAH' of the Petitioner herein [Defendant], was performed with Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff].
6. Under the foregoing scenario, the Petitioner herein [Defendant] was thus called upon through a Legal Notice [Exh.'P/1-C'] by Plaintiff's counsel to immediately pronounce 'Divorce', to the Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] i.e. within seven [7] days, from receipt of such Legal Notice dated 24.09.2012, failing which, Respondent No.3 herein, [Plaintiff] would have no 'alternate' except to seek appropriate remedy by way of approaching a court of law, as well as, to other competent authorities including Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad etc. regarding the Defendant's-Petitioner's illegal, un-justifiable and immoral acts. The Petitioner herein, despite receipt of such legal notice, however, failed to give any positive response.
7. On account of 'passive attitude'/ 'dis-inclined behavior' of Petitioner [Defendant], in the heart of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff], hatred was gradually developed thus she finally compelled to approach the court of learned Xth Family Judge, Karachi-West, by way of filing a Suit on 27.11.2012, for 'Dissolution' of her Marriage by way of 'Khula', and recovery of 'past maintenance' with the prayers as follows:-
1) It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to pass a Judgment and decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, thereby dissolving the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Defendant, thereby declaring the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Petitioner herein [Defendant] or in the alternative , the Plaintiff may be awarded KHULA for which she is ready forego her Dower amount.
2) To direct the Defendant to pay the past maintenance of the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month since 24-12-1999 which is approx. calculated to Rs.46,80,000/- for last 156 months and also till she get Khulla, further the Defendant be directed to pay maintenance in addition to the abovementioned maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month already settled in between the parties in Nikkah Nama against 156 months i.e. total amounting to Rs.3,12,000,00/- and onwards till disposal of suit.
3) Costs of this suit, any other/further relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper.
8. Upon service, the Petitioner herein [Defendant], filed his 'written statement' wherein, the 'allegations levelled' and 'adverse assertions' made in plaint were denied/controverted. In the 'written statement' however, the factum of 'NIKAH' on 24.12.1999, according to Muslim Personal Law, against the Dower amount of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty Thousand only], was not denied. Besides, 'Registration' of NIKAH and receiving the Registered Copy of 'NIKAHNAMA' [Exh. 'P/1-C'] was also not denied.
9. Per Petitioner's stand, he is still residing in a 'Government Hostel', and has never obtained any accommodation from the 'Employer Department' [Dr. A.Q. Khan Research Lab Kahutta], because of the Plaintiff's 'non-co-operation' though, the Plaintiff is a 'wedded wife' of the Defendant [Petitioner herein].
10. As averred in the 'written statement', the Petitioner [Defendant], has neither kept the Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] nor her parents, as alleged, on false hopes in respect of Plaintiff's Rukhsati. Per Petitioner's stand, he and his family always wished/ wanted to take the 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff namely Ms. Shahnaz after 'performance of her Nikah' on 24.12.1999, with Petitioner herein [Defendant]. Per assertions, Defendant's father and other family members regarding 'Plaintiff's Rukhsati', though had made requests to the Plaintiff's family members but they despite such requests did not agree for the Rukhsati of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] since, 24.12.1999, when her Nikah was performed with the Petitioner [Defendant]. Per Petitioner's stand, Plaintiff's father in fact, before Rukhsati of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] wanted first to arrange the marriages of his elder daughters, construct a house in Orangi Town, Karachi and set-up a transport business.
11. During the entire period i.e. since, the performance of Plaintiff's 'Nikahnama' with the Petitioner herein [Defendant] on 24.12.1999, it was the Plaintiff's father, who wasted long time for fulfilling of his wishes. The 'Rukhsati' of the Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff], namely Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman thus became a hurdle for the Petitioner herein [Defendant], as well as, his family. Per Defendant's version/stand, no delay, 'irreparable losses', 'mental agony' and/or 'great inconvenience', as alleged, in the plaint, was ever caused to Plaintiff, as Petitioner [Defendant], is not only a law abiding citizen of Islamic Republic of Pakistan but also a responsible Government employee. Per version of the Petitioner herein [Defendant] sometime in the Month of April, 2012, when father of Petitioner herein [Defendant], came to Karachi along with the Defendant's uncles namely [i]. Muhammad Ashraf and [ii]. Muhammad Riaz for attending a 'funeral ceremony' of his brother-in-law namely Khursheed [late] then, also after the attending the 'funeral ceremony', they had also gone to the house of Plaintiff's father, situated in Orangi Town, Karachi, with a request for the Plaintiff's Rukhsati but then, instead of allowing the Rukhsati, a promise for allowing Rukhsati was made but only after the Chehlum of Khursheed [late], is over.
12. With regard to the death of Plaintiff's mother, per Defendant's stand, she did not expire much-less, to say due to 'shock'/ 'worries' caused to her on account of Plaintiff's 'Non-Rukhsati', rather to say, she had died, on account of acute 'blood pressure' and 'heart attack' in a Hospital. The 'funeral ceremony' of the Plaintiff's mother, was also attended by the Defendant [Petitioner herein], as well as, his mother who is a real sister of the Plaintiff's deceased's mother. According to Defendant's version, this time, as well, after ten [10] days, from the death of Plaintiff's mother, the Defendant's mother had asked for 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], but then, also, as asserted, father of the Plaintiff had said that the matter of 'Rukhsati' would be dis-cussed later-on i.e. after Chehlum of Plaintiff's mother. On saying so, the Petitioner [Defendant] left for Peshawar, without taking 'Rukhsati' of Mst. Shehnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman.
13. Thereafter, some weeks' later, family members of the Defendant again requested to Plaintiff's father to give the 'Rukhsati' of Plaintiff but then, also the 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff was denied by demanding/imposing some new conditions i.e. [i]. 'Dower amount' must be of Rs.10 Lacs [ii]. 'Monthly Maintenance' amount must be of Rs.10,000/- per month and [3]. The 'gold ornaments' must be of 15 Tolas. Otherwise, the 'Rukhsati' of his daughter [Plaintiff], would not be allowed. Later-on, per Petitioner's stand, a letter dated 07.2.2012, was sent through registered A/D to Plaintiff's father, in which a request for effecting 'Rukhsati' of Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], was made/reiterated. Moreover, in the said letter of 07.02.2012, imposition of new conditions was stated to be against the 'Sharia'. The father of Plaintiff, somehow, was no more interested in the 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff, though in this regard, repeatedly requests were made on the part of Defendant's kith and kin but to no avail.
14. In the legal notice dated 27.9.2012 [Exh.'A/1-B'], received to Defendant [Petitioner herein], from Plaintiff's side, a clear demand for 'Divorce' of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein] was made. The Defendant's father, thereafter, came to Karachi, along with his relatives namely [i] Muhammad Bashir and [ii]. his son named Shakeel Ahmed who also went to the house of the Plaintiff's father with an 'aim to resolve' the issue/dispute of 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein] but then father of the Plaintiff stated/said that he has taken a Swear [QASAM] not to give 'Rukhsati' of Plaintiff to the Defendant. In this regard, as asserted in the 'written statement', the Petitioner's father had also approached some other 'relatives' / 'family members' of Plaintiff's father i.e. [i]. Shah Zaman who is the brother of Plaintiff's father and [ii]. Shafiq-ur-Rehman. Per Defendant's versions, they had also requested to the Plaintiff's father for allowing 'Rukhsati' of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], but father of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] did not bother to even consider such requests.
15. In the 'written statement', it has further been asserted that after the Defendant's 'Nikah' his father and other family members always used to send 'gift items', as well as, 'cash amount' for/to the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein] i.e. on each 'occasion of Eid' etc. as the Defendant's sister is also married at Karachi, as such, when the Defendant's family sent anything to his sister then, gift items, were also sent for the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], that is to say, sometime by hand and sometime through money order, despite the fact that the Plaintiff's 'Rukhsati' had not taken place. Per 'averments' made in the 'written statement', the Plaintiff is not entitled for any 'maintenance' as claimed, in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], because it was the Plaintiff and her family, who not only refused the 'Rukhsati' but the Plaintiff herself had also refused/ avoided the performance of 'marital obligation' with the Defendant. The Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], as such, is not entitled for recovery of any 'past maintenance' as claimed.

The Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], as such, is not entitled for recovery of any 'past maintenance' as claimed.
16. Later on, when Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], came-up before the Court of learned Xth Family Judge, Karachi-West, for 'pre-trial' proceedings on 10.4.2013 then, the following order was passed :-
Case called. Today the matter is fixed for pre trial proceedings. The plaintiff is present with her counsel so also the defendant counsel is present. The plaintiff stated that she does not want to live with the defendant at any cost and request for dissolution of marriage by way of khulla and is ready of to forego her dower amount Rs.30,000/- which is still unpaid to her and rukhsati did not take place. On the other hand, the defendant in his written statement admitted that he had not paid the dower and his counsel contended that any appropriate order may be passed. [Emphasis Supplied].
The facts of the plaintiff case are the plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by way of khulla and recovery of past maintenance against the defendant.
It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the amendment in section 10 of the W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court in a suit for dissolution of marriage, if reconciliation fails, shall pass decree for dissolution of marriage for with and shall also restore the husband Haq Mehar received by the wife in consideration of marriage at the time of marriage.
Since, the dower is not disputed, thus no question of returning the same arises. Hence I hereby declare the pre-trial proceedings failed and dissolve the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant and from the pleading of parties following issues were framed:--
1. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff? [OPD]
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance, if so, at what rate and from which period?
3.What should the decree be?
Let the 'preliminary decree' be prepared and sent to the concerned authorities for information and compliance.
Announced in open court
Given under my hand and the seal of the court
This 10th--------day of--------April ------2013
Sd/-
[Mrs. Shehnaz Bohyo]
Xth Family Judge
Karachi West.
17. In compliance with the Order dated 10.4.2013, a 'PRELIMINARY DECREE', was accordingly prepared/ passed on 10.4.2013. The marriage of the Plaintiff [Respondent No.3 herein], namely Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman with the Defendant namely Muhammad Arif son of Ali Asghar was thus dissolved. The Plaintiff in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], thereafter, it appears, had filed her own 'Affidavit-in-Evidence' on 27.11.2012, wherein, the 'averments' and 'assertions' vis-a-vis 'dissolution of her marriage' with Defendant [Petitioner herein] and he claim pleaded/put forward for 'MAINTENANCE' in plaint were 're-affirmed'/'reiterated'. Later on, the Plaintiff's 'Examination-in-Chief' and 'Cross-Examination' was recorded on 17.9.2013. In the Plaintiff's 'Examination-in-Chief', the deponent namely Mst. Shehnaz [PW-1] besides, producing here 'Affidavit-in-Evidence' as Exh 'P/1-A' also produced here 'Nikahnama' dated 24.12.1999, 'TCS Receipt' and 'Legal Notice' dated 24.09.2012 as Exh. 'P/1-B' and Exh. 'P/1-C'. Thereafter, the evidence of Plaintiff's 2nd witness namely Muhammad Saleem ['PW-2'], was recorded on 12.11.2013 and thereafter, Plaintiffs side of evidence was closed.
18. The Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif] thereafter, was posted for Defendant's side of evidence on 02.12.2013. On 02.12.2013 and thereafter, on so many dates right upto 27.08.2014, the Family suit was adjourned for one reason or the other. On 27.08.2014, an Application for re-opening of the Plaintiff's side of evidence was filed, as then, the Plaintiff wanted to examine a 3rd witness namely Muhammad Shafiq. On 05.10.2019 the Defendant filed, objections in response to the Plaintiff's such Application. On 29.01.2014 the said application was heard and allowed. For ready reference, Order dated 29.01.2016 is reproduced herein-below:-
"By this order, I intend to dispose of an application for re-opening the side of the Plaintiff to examine her witness namely Muhammad Shafiq, which is filed by Plaintiff through her counsel notice of said application was duly served upon defendant learned counsel for Plaintiff contended that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to reopen her side of Plaintiff of witness her side of evidence and permit her to examine her witness namely Muhammad Shafiq in this suit as earlier due to bonafide mistake of advocate for Plaintiff he closed her side of evidence but later on when the Plaintiff informed her advocate that she wants to examine her important witness Muhammad Shafiq who is brother of the Plaintiff and he can depose properly in respect of documents which were filed by the defendant in this case with his written statement hence he is important witness therefore he may be examined in the interest of Justice earlier her father was cited as such witness but he then. Hence, now her brother is important witness in this case.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied upon the case reported as Umar Hayat v. Additional District Judge and others (2004 SCMR 1637 Supreme Court of Pakistan), Mrs Shahnaz Begum and 4 others (1995 CLC 327 LHR), Mrs. Hidayat Khatoon v. Munir Ahmed and others (1999 MLD 2153 KHI), Abdul Khaleeq v. Rashid Ahmed (1999 MLD 2156 LHR) respectively.
On the other hand, the defendant filed counter affidavit through his counsel wherein he submitted that application for reopening the side of the Plaintiff to examine her witness is not maintainable as the same had been filed without mentioning the proper section of law. He next stated that the name of deposed witness had not been mentioned in the list of the witnesses of the Plaintiff. He next submitted that reason had not been explained in the application that the said witness is necessary and affective. He next submitted that the application is only filed to pressurized the defendant. He next submitted that the said application had been filed without any valid reasons. He further stated that the said application had been filed without any valid reasons. He further stated that the said application is groundless and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it would be better to give ample opportunity to the Plaintiff to contest the matter rather than to decide the case on technical ground as law would favour adjudication on merits. With regard to contention of production of the witness the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 could not be confined to Plaints only both Plaintiff and defendant could be allowed to produce evidence beyond the list appended with the pleadings. Thus, keeping this view in the interest of justice and to decide the case on merit the Plaintiff application is hereby allowed subject to payment of a sum of Rs.500/- as cost by the Plaintiff to the defendant and order dated 12-11-2013 is hereby recalled, the Plaintiff is also allowed to produce the witness namely Muhammad Shafiq to establish her claim. The Plaintiff is directed to produce the witness till the next date of hearing without fail. [Emphasis Supplied]."
19. On granting the aforesaid Application on 29.01.2016 the 'affidavit-in-evidence' of Plaintiff's 3rd witness namely Muhammad Shafiq son of Khalilur Rehman ['PW-3'], was filed on 16.02.2016. Lateron, on 17.04.2016, his evidence was also recorded. Thereafter, Plaintiff's side of evidence, i.e. after recording of Plaintiff's evidence ['PW-1'] and other two [2] witnesses i.e. ['PW-2' and 'PW-3'], was closed in presence of Defendant's counsel and then, the case was put-up to 23.04.2016, for Defendant's side of evidence. On 23.04.2016, for want of Defendant's side evidence, the case was put-up to 29.04.2016. On 29.04.2016, again none was present from the Defendant's side. Nonetheless, then, also as 'last' and 'final' chance, the case was adjourned to 16.05.2016. Once again for the same purpose, the case was adjourned to 30.05.2016. Again on 30.05.2016 as a 'last' and 'final' chance, the case was adjourned to 21.07.2016. On 21.07.2016, again the case was put-up to 11.08.2016 for Defendant's evidence. Even, thereafter again and again, the case was posted/fixed for Defendant's evidence that is to say from 11.8.2016 till 26.11.2016.
20. From the record, it reveals that later on, the Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], was transferred from the Court of learned VIIIth Family Judge, Karachi-West, to the Court of learned IXth Civil/Family Judge and JM, Karachi-West, vide order dated 23.11.2016, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-West. On transfer of the suit, when the Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], came-up before the Court of learned IXth Civil/Family Judge and JM, Karachi-West, on 02.12.2016, for Defendant's side of evidence then, again, as a 'last' and 'final' chance, the Family Suit, was adjourned to 16.12.2016, for recording of Defendant's evidence. Even thereafter, on 10.12.2016, the Defendant, failed and/or avoided to come forward and record his evidence. The Defendant's side of evidence, under the foregoing circumstances, was 'closed' and resultantly, the suit was fixed on 14.12.2016 for 'POST TRIAL PROCEEDINGS'. Lastly, on 17.01.2017, when the Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 came-up before the Court of learned IXth Civil/Family Judge, Karachi-West, then, the 'Post Trial Proceedings' were declared as failed. For ready reference, order dated 17.01.2017, is reproduced herein-below:-
"Case called. Counsel for plaintiff is present. None is present from defendant side. Perusal of record shows that matter was fixed for post-trial proceedings but neither Plaintiff nor Defendant appeared before this Court. Therefore, post-trial proceedings failed. Now the matter is fixed for final arguments on next date of hearing."
21. As a routine, even on 17.01.2017, none was present from the Defendant's side. Nonetheless, then, the case was posted for 'arguments' on 17.01.2017. Per record, thereafter, for the same purpose, on nine [9] occasions i.e. from 17.01.2017 to 17.04.2017, the case was adjourned. As per earlier 'LATE DIARY' dated 10.12.2016, the Defendant [Petitioner herein], had opted to file an Application for re-opening of Defendant's side of evidence/ recalling of order dated 10.12.2016, whereby, not only the Defendant's side of evidence was closed, but the Application for re-opening the Defendant's side of evidence was also dismissed. The relevant part of Order dated 17.01.2017, reads as follows:--..
"The learned counsel for the defendant filed an application for adjournment where it has been on record that since long defendant is absent and since last four dates of hearing matter is fixed for evidence of the defendant but on each and every date an adjournment application is filed on the date of hearing. The defendant if did not appear his side shall be closed. Last chance was then given but today again, is the same position. The application filed by the learned counsel for the defendant stands dismissed and the side of defendant is hereby closed.
22. The Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif] thereafter, was coming-up for 'final arguments'. Lastly, on 17.04.2017, when the said suit was fixed for 'final arguments', then the Defendant's counsel, opted to file another Application for re-calling/setting aside of order dated 10.12.2016, as being evident from the Late Diary of 17.4.2016. The said Application, later on, was 'allowed' on 27.4.2016, however, subject to a condition that the Petitioner herein [Defendant], be produced within fifteen [151 days for recording his evidence and in case of his 'failure' heavy cost shall be awarded. Then, as appears, the case for such purpose, was adjourned to 13.05.2017.
23. On 13.05.2017, counsel for the Defendant's, filed an 'Affidavit-in-Evidence' and copy thereof, was supplied to the Plaintiff's counsel. The matter, thereafter, was adjourned to 29.05.2017, for recording of Defendant's evidence but again, as a 'last' and 'final chance'. Being relevant, Order dated 29.05.2017, is also reproduced herein-below:--
Learned counsel for defendant filed application for adjournment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also present. The photocopy of the certificate also annexed with the application. It shows that the matter is pending since 2012 and defendant filed his affidavit in evidence on 13.5.2017. In the above circumstances the application is allowed with the condition that on next date of hearing if the defendant does not appear his side shall be closed and cost of Rs.5000/- shall also be imposed [Emphasis Supplied].
24. Even thereafter, the Family Suit was adjourned on 'several occasions' i.e. 04.07.2017, 26.07.2017 and 09.08.2017, for want of Defendant's evidence. Some of the 'more relevant' trial court's diaries i.e. 10.12.2016, 17.01.2017, 25.04.2017, 27.04.2017, 29.05.2017 and 17.08.2017, are reproduced herein-below respectively:-
a. 10.12.2016
Case called. Counsel for Plaintiff is present. Lr. Counsel for defendant is present but defendant called absent. Order passed on separate sheet. Defendant side is closed and matter adjourned to 14.12.2016 for post trial [Emphasis Supplied].
b. 17.01.2017
Case called. Counsel for Plaintiff is present. None present for defendant side. Order passed on separate sheet. Post trial proceedings failed and matter adjourned to 24.01.2017 for final arguments. [Emphasis Supplied]
c. 25.04.2017
Counsel for both parties are present. Counsel for Plaintiff received copy of application for re-call/set aside the order dated 10.12.2016 filed by the counsel for defendant. Adjourned to 27.04.2017 for hearing on said application. [Emphasis Supplied].
d. 27.04.2017
Counsel for both parties are present. Arguments heard on application for re-call/set aside the order dated 10.12.2016 filed by the counsel for defendant. Application is allowed with the condition that within 15 days defendant be produced in case of failure heavy cost shall be awarded. Adjourned to 13.05.2017 for defendant evidence. [Emphasis Supplied].
e. 29.05.2017

Case called. Counsel for both parties are present. Counsel for defendant filed adjournment application. Detail order passed on said application and said application is allowed with the condition that on next date of hearing, if the defendant does not appear, his side shall be closed and a cost Rs. 5000/- shall also be imposed. Adj. to 04-07-2017 for cross-examination of defendant. [Emphasis Supplied].
f. 29.05.2017
Case called. Counsel for both parties are present. Counsel for defendant filed adjournment application. Detail order passed on said application and same is dismissed. The side of the defendant is hereby closed and matter upto 28.08.2017 for final arguments. [Emphasis Supplied].
25. On 16.09.2017, the Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], was consequently decreed in the following manner:
[i] The Defendant is directed to pay maintenance of the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for 3 years [total Rs.900,000/-] within one month [excluding deposited amount, if any];
[ii]. Cost shall follow the events.
26. Not only the 'assertions' made in the plaint but the evidence led from the Plaintiff's side, in support of her stand/claim, as well, was gone un-rebutted, as Defendant [Petitioner herein] failed to establish his stand. The Plaintiff's Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shahnaz v. Muhammad Arif], for recovery of 'past maintenance', against the Defendant, was consequently decreed on 16.09.2017, in the above manner by the learned IXth Civil and Family Judge Karachi-West, after giving the brief facts in the background as follows:-
"The Plaintiff performed Nlkah with the defendant on 21.12.1999 at Karachi per sharia against the dower amount of Rs.30000/- but Rukhsati never took over Nikahnama was registered by the defendant and said that if the Nikahnama will be registered he will seek accommodation for the residence as the defendant is working in Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Islamabad and as per their rules for the accommodation, he has to submit the registered Nikahnama. Therefore, father of the plaintiff continuously requested the parents of the defendant for Rukhsati but they always gave lame excuses and sought time. Lastly, before the filing of the present suit before 8 months, father of plaintiff strictly asked the defendant's family for Rukhsati but defendant refused to perform the Rukhsati after 13 years of the Nikah, Hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers:
[a] To direct the defendant for performing of the marriage or alternative the plaintiff be awarded Khula in lieu of dower amount.
[b] To direct the defendant to pay the past maintenance of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month since 24.12.1999 which approx. calculated Rs.40,80,000/- for the last 156 months till the Order of the khula.
[c] To direct the defendant to pay maintenance in addition as per condition of Nikahnama at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month of last 156 months.
[d] Any other or further relief[s] which this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant under the circumstances of the case.
The defendant was served and filed his written statement. The Defendant besides denying the adverse allegations admitted the factum of marriage. The defendant stated that the father of plaintiff was not ready for performing the Rukhsati of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not performed any legal duty of defendant. It is all fault of the plaintiff that the Rukhsati could not take place. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
27. Upon passing of Decree on 16.09.2017, the Defendant [Petitioner herein], instead of paying the 'decretal amount' somehow, feeling himself 'aggrieved' by and 'dis-satisfied' with judgment and decree, opted to file Family Appeal No.101 of 2017 [Muhammad Arif v. Mst. Shahnaz], before the court of learned Addl. District Judge No.VIII Karachi-West 'inter alia' with a prayer for setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017, whereby, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. The prayers sought in the Memo of Appeal No.101 of 2017 [Muhammad Arif v. Mst. Shahnaz], reads as follows:--
In view of the above, it is therefore, very respectfully prayed that this appeal may very kindly be accepted and impugned judgment dated 16.09.2017 and decree may very graciously be set-aside in the interest of justice after calling record and proceedings from the trial Court.
It is further prayed that the matter may very graciously be remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh after hearing the appellant and opportunity may be given to the appellant.
Any other relief/relives this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances, of the case in the interest of justice.
28. The aforesaid Family Appeal No.101 of 2017 [Muhammad Arif v. Mst. Shahnaz], when came-up before the learned VIIIth Addl. District Judge and Sessions Judge Karachi-West, on 30.08.2018, then, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the same was dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. The 'material portion' of the Appellate's court judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed in Family Appeal No.101 of 2017, reads as follows:
Primarily, under section 277 of Muhammadan Law, a husband is bound to maintain his wife unless she is too young for matrimonial in*******se, so long she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. In the present case, the nikahnama reveals that the girl/respondent was 18 years old and since no rukhsati had taken place, thus, the question of faithfulness and obeying the orders does not strictly applicable to the case. Even, if we consider the contention of the learned appellant's counsel that in absence of rukhsati no maintenance can be given, because no favour had extended from wife to husband, respectfully is misconceived. In his book namely Digest of Muhammadan Law Baillie has mentioned that;
"when an adult women, who has not yet removed to her husband's house, ask for maintenance, she is entitled to it unless he has called upon her to remove;"
This shows that mere fact of no rukhsati would not debar a wife from claiming her maintenance unless she refuses to remove herself from her father's house on the orders of husband. In this case, respondent took plea that it was on the part of appellant that he did not called for rukhsati and she waited for 13 years. From the available evidence, especially the letter of appellant's father, it is not difficult to deduce that there was some delay on the party of appellant's side, which the father of the appellant tried to clarify. The appellant on the other hand, though cross-examined, the respondent/plaintiff, but chose nor to lead his evidence or produce any witness, which goes against his plea. It cannot be ignored that in our society the age of a girl is very crucial for the purpose of marriage and it is not difficult to foresee what actually went through the lady who waited for 13 years after nikkah for her rukhsati and indeed from the record she got married in 2017 at the age of 36 years of age. Thus, without any doubt, I am of the view that appellant being husband of the respondent was bound to maintain his wife and in the given circumstances when he had failed to prove that rukhsati was on account of failure of respondent side.
The learned trial court had fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs.25,000/- per month, which in my view is not exorbitant keeping in view that appellant is serving in BPS-20 in a prestigious department and his salary would not be less than Rs.200,000/- at present. Though the amount so decreed by the court cannot be a compensation for a time respondent had suffered, but at least in accordance with law, some compensation would relieve her pain [Emphasis Supplied].
Moreover, the instant family appeal is also not maintainable on account of non-payment of Court fee. It is admitted position that appeal is not filed on any stamp paper. I have gone through the case law of Hameeda Begum v. 1st ADJ and another [1988 CLC 1645] whereby Honourable Divisional Bench hold that Family Court is in fact a civil Court and any appeal under section 14 of Family Court Act filed before District Court falls under Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fees Act and in case of non-payment, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Thus, on the basis of above observations, the point No.1 is answered as Negative.
(Point No.1 was/is to the effect and extent as to Whether the Judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017, passed by the learned 9th Family Judge Karachi-West, in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 suffers from any illegality and require interference?'
29. The Petitioner herein, [Defendant], once again feeling 'aggrieved' by and 'dis-satisfied' with the 'concurrent findings' of the courts below, has now approached this Hon'ble court by way of filing the instant Constitutional Petition No.S-2342 of 2018, [Muhammad Arif son of Ali Asghar v. Additional Sessions Judge No. VIII Karachi West and others], 'inter alia' with a prayer that 'Judgment' and 'decree' passed by the learned IXth Civil and Family Judge Karachi-West [Annexure 'E/3' to the MoP] and maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi-West, through the 'impugned judgment' of 30.08.2018, herein [Annexure 'A' to the MoP], be set aside, as the same, besides being erroneous have been passed 'contrary to law' and without properly appreciating the 'materials'/'evidence' available on record. Further, both the impugned 'Judgments' and 'Decrees' (Annexure 'A' and 'E/3' to the MoP] even otherwise, are bad in law, as per the Petitioner's version, the 'MONEY DECREE', in fact has been passed without affording a chance to the Petitioner herein [Defendant], to 'examine' himself on oath.
30. On 29.10.2018, when the instant Constitutional Petition No.S-2342/ 2018 [Muhammad Arif son of Ali Asghar v. Additional Sessions Judge No. VIII Karachi West and others], came-up before this Court, on the Petitioner's urgent Application, then while, granting the urgent Application, the following order was passed:
29.10.2018
Mr. Altamash Faisal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
-----
1. Granted.
2. Deferred till the next date of hearing.
3. Granted subject to just all legal objections.
4&5. Per learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner and Respondent No.3 married on 24.12.1999, but no Rukhsati took place till this date. However, per learned counsel for the petitioner Respondent No.3 filed Family Suit No.1653/2012 in the Court of X Family Judge, Karachi West for dissolution of marriage by way of Khulla and recovery of past maintenance. Per learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner contested the aforesaid suit but as petitioner was posted at Haripur, therefore, he could not contest the suit properly and his evidence was not recorded, though he filed affidavit-in-evidence but was not cross-examined before the trial Court. The trial Court on 16.09.2017 decided the matter and partly decreed the suit of the Respondent No.3 by judgment dated 16.09.2017. Per learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner filed Family Appeal No.101/2017 against the aforesaid judgment in the Court of District Judge, Karachi West and by judgment dated 30.08.2018, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Karachi West, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgments of both the trial Court and Appellate Court are patently illegal as no Rukhsati took place therefore, awarding the maintenance is illegal and unlawful. Point raised requires consideration. Issue notice to the Respondent No.3. Subject to furnishing of surety to the extent of Rs.900,000/- [Rupees Nine Lacs], to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court, operation of the impugned judgments/decree shall remain suspended till the next date of hearing. [Emphasis Supplied].
Adjourned to 19.11.2018.

31. It appears that pursuant to and in compliance with order dated 29.10.2018, the 'requisite security' was not furnished. The 'non-furnishing' of the security/ surety is evident from the 'endorsement' of Deputy Nazir dated 23.11.2018 and 18.12.2018. Nonetheless, when later on, the matter came-up before the court on 21.05.2019, then, it was observed that order dated 29.10.2018, does not rule-out a 'Bank Guarantee' and resultantly Nazir of this Court was directed to accept the same. Accordingly, Bank Guarantee bearing No.ABL-176PB181025 dated 18.07.2019, M/s. Askari Bank Limited Sumbalhag Branch, 'Kahutta', in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/ - [Rupees Nine Lac only], was accepted. The Deputy Nazir report dated 13.09.2019, in this regard reads as follows:
NAZIR'S ENDORSEMENT IN COMPLIANCE OF COURT'S ORDER DATED 30.08.2019
In compliance of Court's order dated 30.08.2019, Bank Guarantee bearing No.3ABL-176PB181025 dated 18.07.2019 furnished by the authorized officers namely Messrs Hafiz Muhammad Fareed Haseeb son of Muhammad Haseeb and Syed Asif Haider son of Syed Razi Haider of Askari Bank Limited, Sumbalhag Branch Kahuta in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- [Rupees Nine Lac only] on behalf of Petitioner vide Bond No.80149 dated 12.09.2019. This Guarantee has been accepted after obtaining NOC regarding amount from the learned counsel for Respondents
32. Lastly, on 23.10.2019 and 29.11.2019, when the above Constitutional Petition came-up before me then, I heard Mr. Altamash along with Mr. Muhammad Rehan, learned counsel for the Petitioner herein [Defendant] and Mian Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 herein [Plaintiff] and also gone through the available record before me minutely, with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
33. Mr. Altmash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner [Defendant] while, arguing the case of the Petitioner forcefully, contended that both the courts below have badly failed while, passing the 'impugned' judgments and decrees [Annexure 'A' and 'A/3' to the MoP] to either properly apply their judicial mind and/or otherwise, to appreciate the 'evidence' / 'materials' available on record in its' 'true perspective'. Per learned counsel, both the courts in fact have erred in law while, deciding the matter without considering the 'contents' of the Defendant's 'written statement' and 'affidavit-in-evidence' merely for the reason that the Petitioner herein [Defendant], has failed to appear, lead evidence and put himself to 'cross-examination' before the trial court in Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shehnaz daughter of Khalil ur Rehman v. Muhammad Arif].
34. According to Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner herein [Defendant], both the 'impugned Judgments' and 'Decrees' are not only suffering from 'mis-reading', 'non-reading' of evidence but the same are also bad on account of material 'irregularities' and 'illegalities' committed by both the courts below. Per learned counsel, the Petitioner [Defendant] though accepts in his 'written statement'/ 'Affidavit-in-Evidence' the factum of his 'Nikah' with Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] on 24.12.1999 but as far as 'Rukhsati' of Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman, is concerned, the same could not take place as Respondent No.3's parents despite all possible efforts on the part of Petitioner [Defendant], did not agree to allow.
35. Per Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No.3, namely Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman nevertheless, has failed to establish that her Non-'Rukhsati' in any manner was on account of the Petitioner's failure. Per learned counsel, the 'burden of proof' in this regard was lying on the shoulder of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] which burden, as evident from the record, has not been discharged satisfactorily. According to Mr. Altamash Arab, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.VIII Karachi-West, somehow, in an erroneous way, shifted the burden of proving of 'Non-Rukhsati', on the shoulders of Petitioner herein [Defendant] though it was solely and squarely lying on the shoulder of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff], as it was she who approached the court of law by instituting legal proceedings i.e. Family Suit No.1653 of 2012 [Mst. Shehnaz daughter of Khalil ur Rehman v. Muhammad Arif], before the Family Court. Filing of legal proceedings also amounts to refusal.
36. Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner herein [Defendant], while, continuing his arguments next contended that the learned Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.VIII Karachi-West, has erred in interpreting the contents of letter dated 07.02.2012, written by the Petitioner's father to Respondent No.3's father. Per learned counsel, bare reading of the letter would show that the admission of delay from the Petitioner's side was only with a view to maintain the existing 'cordial' and 'good relationship'.
37. Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner herein [Defendant], next contended that even, awarding of 'maintenance' in the sum of Rs.25,000/- [Twenty Five Thousand only], per month towards' 'Past Maintenance' of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff], is without any 'justification', as in the case in hand, the marriage has not consummated as Rukhsati has never taken place. For this reason, as well, awarding of 'maintenance amount to Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Khalil-ur-Rehman, is contrary to law. In the case in hand, the 'Rukhsati' of Respondent No.3 [Plaintiff] since performance of her Nikah on 24.12.1999 with the Petitioner did not take place upto 27.11.2012, when a Family Suit No.1653/2012 [Mst. Shehnaz daughter of Khalil ur Rehman v. Muhammad Arif], for 'dissolution of marriage by way of Khulla' and recovery of 'past maintenance', was filed before the court of Xth Family/Civil Judge at Karachi-West. The grant of 'maintenance amount', without 'consummation' of marriage, per Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner [Defendant], besides, being illegal is un-justified.
38. Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner [Defendant] in support of his contentions placed reliance on the cases of [i] Mst. Rubina Bibi v. Muhammad Bashir Ahmed [2006 ylr 633] [ii]. Syed Rashid Ali Shah v. Mst. Haleema Bibi and 2 others [PLD 2014 Peshawar 226]. The relevant portions therefrom, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Altamash Arab, learned counsel for the Petitioner [Defendant], are as follows:
[i] 2006 ylr 633:-
6. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is silent so far as past maintenance is concerned, therefore, the Court while interpreting the statute must keep in mind the intention of the Legislature. A wife who does not bother to live with her husband and perform her marital obligation is not entitled for the grant of maintenance allowance. Here in this case the petitioner lived separately and even has not performed the marital obligations in spite of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent No.1. For what has been discussed above, I find that respondent No.2 has rightly passed the detailed order which needs no interference by this Court in Constitutional petition. Instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. [Emphasis supplied]
[ii]. PLD 2014 PESHAWAR 226:-
8. Beside that the perusal of the judgments of the trial court reflects that on failure of pre-trial reconciliation proceedings, marriage of the parties was dissolved vide order dated 24.2.2007 and thereafter issues were framed and parties were put to trial for recording pro and contra evidence. The only provision which empowers the Family Court to dissolve the marriage of the parties in such manner is Proviso to section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which for ready reference and to properly appreciate the legal aspect of the case is reproduced herein below:-
"10. Pre-trial Proceeding.--
(1) ..
(2) ..
(3) ..
(4) ..
Provided that notwithstanding any decision or judgment of any court or tribunal, the Family Court in a suit for dissolution of marriage, if reconciliation fails, shall pass decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith and also restore the husband the Haq Mehr received by the wife in consideration of marriage at the time of marriage". [Emphasis supplied]
9. Bare reading of the proviso envisages that in case of failure of reconciliation at pre-trial stage, the court shall not only pass a decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith but also restore the husband the Haq Mahr, received by the wife in consideration of marriage. In view of this legal position when it was crystal clear before the trial court that Rukhsati had not taken place and the plaintiff wife is not willing to live with the husband in compliance of her marital obligation and the trial court due to the same reason, reached to a conclusion that re-union of the parties is impossible, had dissolved the marriage at pre-trial reconciliation stage, it was obligatory to restore Mahr/dower to husband received by the wife and there was no reason to go ahead with the trial to determine cruelty of the husband, which as observed earlier, was nothing else except second marriage of the petitioner/defendant. Whereas the sam