Case Details

Citation(s)
1953 SLG 167 1953 SLD 167 1953 PLD 10
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Second Appeal No. 38 of 1952, decided on 19th March 1953, against the order of Yar Muhammad Khan, District aced Sessions Judge Mirpur, dated the 22nd July 1952.
ABDUL MAJID, C.J.
Mumtaz Muhammad for Appellant. Aftab Ahmad for
Respondent.

Mst. RESHMAN--Appellant

VS

Sher--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII 7 of 1939), S. 2 (ii)-Failure to maintain enough-Whether wife or husband to blame immaterial. The plain ordinary meaning of the words "has failed to provide maintenance" in clause (ii) appears to be very clear. The question whether there was a failure to maintain is pure question of fact which does not in any manner depend upon the circumstances in which the failure had occurred. The Muslim Law does not require the wife to beg the husband for maintaining her. On the other hand, it experts every husband to maintain his wife as long as the marriage subsists even ; when the wife's conduct is such as to induce him to refuse to maintain her. P L D 1950 Sind 36 rel. A I R 1944 Lah. 336 dissented from. JUDGMENT ABDUL MAJID, C. J.-This is a Second appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge, Mirpur upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for dissolution of her marriage. The plaintiff Mst. Reshman brought a suit against her husband Sher for dissolution of her marriage. Her allegations were (a) that her husband had neglected to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years; (b) that her husband had failed to perform without reasonable cause his marital obligations for a period of three years; (c) arid that he had married another wife and did not treat her In accordance with the injunctions of the Holy Quran. The suit was resisted by Sher who denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff. The trial Court end the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff had been living separately from her husband in the house of her parents for five years. but the failure of the defendant to maintain the plaintiff within that period was due to disobedience of the plaintiff and h-r refusal to go back to the defendant. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the plaintiff was entitled to dissolution of marriage on the facts found because the husband's failure to maintain her had occur­red under circumstances in which on account of her conduct she was not entitled in law to sustain a claim for maintenance and hence the failure was not a ground for dissolution by virtue of clause (ii) of section 2 of the…
🔒
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