Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: 9,R.5(6)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 488

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 21

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S. 9---Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.5(6)---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 21---Maintenance allowance---Concurrent jurisdiction---Decision of Arbitration Council to be taken by majority---Scope---Respondent filed petition under S. 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for recovery of maintenance allowance which was allowed and maintenance allowance of Rs. 40,000 per month was fixed---Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal which was allowed and maintenance was decreased to Rs. 20,000 per month---Contentions of petitioner were that after promulgation of Family Courts Act, 1964, the Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to fix maintenance allowance and that under R. 5(6) of Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 all decisions had to be taken by majority---Validity---Section 21 of Family Courts Act, 1964 provided that nothing contained therein would affect any of the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 or Rules framed thereunder---Arbitration Council and Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction in family matters, which fell within their respective domain---Remedy of maintenance allowance under S. 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was in addition to seeking any other remedy available under the law---Same matter, however, could not proceed simultaneously under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and Family Courts Act, 1964 but subsequent proceedings under any of the laws were not barred merely because earlier proceedings were launched and concluded under the other law---Perusal of impugned order revealed that representative of respondent agreed with the decision of Chairman Arbitration Council whereas the representative of petitioner was absent, hence it was a majority decision under R. 5(6) of the Rules Under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Petitioner's earnings being reasonable, maintenance allowance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable warranting interference through constitutional petition---Petitioner had failed to place on record any document regarding his exact income---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Khalil…

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