| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2938 2018 SLD 2938 2018 PLJ 58 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 329 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 13.03.2018. (On appeal from judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, Dated 26.9.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2015)
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Sayyad Hussain Gardezi, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Kabir Kiani, Advocate
C.A. No. 329 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 13.03.2018. (On appeal from judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, Dated 26.9.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2015)
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Sayyad Hussain Gardezi, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Kabir Kiani, Advocate
ASGHAR AHMED KHAN
VS
SAFEENA PARVEEN AND 7 OTHERS
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: 7,8,9,10
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)-- ----Ss. 7, 8, 9, 10--Suits for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, recovery of dowery articles and maintenance allowance--Suits for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowery articles and maintenance allowance were decreed while suit for recovery of dower was dismissed--Suit for restitution of conjugal rights by appellant was dismissed--Appeal--Dismissed--Cruel attitude--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--Nothing has been brought on record that respondent left house of husband with her own free will, rather she was forced to leave same, therefore, element of torture and cruel attitude has been proved through cogent and reliable evidence--It such scenario, trial Court has rightly observed that plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get decree for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty--So far as decrees passed by trial Court for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance allowance in favour of Respondent No. 1, are concerned, it appears that same have been passed after examining evidence led by parties in detail, which findings have been upheld by Court below, on appeal--Appellant failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality in and decree passed by Courts below--We are of unanimous view that trial Court has analyzed evidence in a legal manner and rightly recorded findings, which have been upheld by first-appellate Court--No case of misreading or non¬reading of evidence has been made out with no order as to costs--Appeal was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE- The validity of the judgment passed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, on 26.9.2017, whereby Civil Appeal No. 50/2015, filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed, has been called in question by the appellant, through this appeal, by leave. 2. The gist of the facts forming background of the case are that the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, herein, filed four suits against the defendant-appellant, herein; one for dissolution of the marriage, second for recovery of dower, third for recovery of dowry article and fourth for recovery of maintenance allowance, in the…
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