Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2570 2020 SLD 2570 2020 CLC 549
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 3812 of 2019, decided on 23rd January, 2020, Datesof hearing: 13th, 14th, 20th November, 5th, 9th, 19th and23rd December, 2019.
SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Khaliq Safrani assisted by Muhammad Awais Riaz for Petitioners.Shoukat Rafiq Bajwa assisted by Faiz ur Rehman for
Respondent No.3.

RMST. SAMAN NASEERVSADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Islamic law--- ----Marriage---Nikah---Essentials pre-requisites---Three ingredients of a valid marriage were proposal, acceptance and presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses. Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mullah, para No. 252 ref. (b) Islamic law--- ----Marriage---Nikah---No Wakeel appointed for bride---In the present case, the bride was well educated and more than 27 years of age at the time of Nikah, thus, she was competent enough to enter into Nikah with anybody according to her own whims even without intervention of a third person, in particular a Wakeel. Muhammad Imtiaz and another v. The State PLD 1981 FSC 308; Zarjuma alias Jamna Bibi v. Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar District Bhakkar and 4 others PLD 2009 Lah. 546 and Muhammad Afzaal v. Sessions Judge, Multan and 3 others PLD 2008 Lah. 479 ref. (c) Islamic law--- ----Marriage---Nikah---Witnesses to the Nikah not related to the bride---Only requirement of the law was presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses at the time of offer and acceptance irrespective of the fact that they were closely related to the parties or not --- Furthermore since marriage between the parties in the present case was solemnized against wishes of their families it could not be believed that some immediate family members of the bride would have participated in the said marriage especially when there was great difference between the social/financial status of the parties. Muhammadan Law by D.F.Mullah, para No. 252 ref. (d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Suit for jactitation of marriage --- Plaint --- Allegation of a specific fact --- When a party alleged a specific fact it was bound to prove the same. Petitioner-wife alleged that her signatures and thumb impression, on the alleged Nikahnama, were product of fraud and misrepresentation. Though the petitioner alleged fraud and misrepresentation but she did not specify the same. Had it been sole allegation of fraud then it was exclusive duty of respondent-husband to prove execution of valid Nikah but when the petitioner also alleged impersonation/misrepresentation she was bound to prove that someone else was produced…
🔒
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