Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 184 1974 SLD 184 1974 SCMR 305
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1966, heard on 24th November 1967.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 27th January 1965, in F. M. T. No. 122 of 1965)
S. A. RAHMAN, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, JJ
A. K. Bruhi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, K. Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, M. A. Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court with him instructed by S. M. Abbas, Attorney for M. R. Rahman, Attorneyon-Record for Appellant. M. H. Khondkher, Senior Advocate Supreme Cou

RAHIMULLAH CHOUDHURY

VS

MRS. Sayeda HELALI BEGUM AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Muhammadan Law------Hizanat-Wife on being ill-treated by husband compelled to go away to house of, and stay with, her elder sister's husband, such person having arranged her marriage on death of her father-Wife, held, left under unavoidable circumstances-Leaving ordinary place of residence of husband and taking away with her boys of tender age-­Cannot deprive mother of her right of hizanat in respect of boys. The respondent wife used to send the two boys every day to the house of the appellant father where they stayed with him till such time, as he desired. In the circumstances, it could not be said, that the two boys were removed to such distant place, that the appellant had no access to them on order to exercise his right of supervision and control over them. It is also to be borne in mind that the respondent No. 1 having lost her father had stayed with her elder sister wife of respondent No. 2 for 7 years and her marriage with the appellant was arranged during that period by the said respondent. His house was, therefore, almost like the house of her parents. Her going away from the house of the appellant and staying with her sister in the house of the respondent No. 2 would, therefore, be covered by the condition of `unavoidable circumstances' if it be found that 'the appellant had maltreated her which compelled her to leave his house. The appel­lant asserted that respondents 2 and 3 and their wives were against their living together, but it does not sound convincing. It is his own evidence that the marriage was arranged by respondent No. 2. What possible reason he or the other respondent, could, therefore, have in wrecking that marriage. In the circumstances the reason given by the respondent No. 1 that she had left the house of the appellant because he maltreated her and subjected her to physical torture appears to be more probable. In leaving the ordinary place of residence of the appellant and taking away with her the two boys the respondent, therefore, did not lose her right of hizanat. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) - -- Ss. 25 & 17-Custody of minors-"Welfare"-A question of fact be resolved on materials placed before Judge and not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492