| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1058 2020 SLD 1058 2020 MLD 554 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No .627-P of 2017 with C.Ms. Nos. 119, 1208 and 1209-P of 2017 and C.Ms. Nos. 259 and 260 of 2018, decided on 2nd September, 2019, Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2019.
AHMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi for Petitioner. Shahab Ullah Khan for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No .627-P of 2017 with C.Ms. Nos. 119, 1208 and 1209-P of 2017 and C.Ms. Nos. 259 and 260 of 2018, decided on 2nd September, 2019, Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2019.
AHMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi for Petitioner. Shahab Ullah Khan for
Respondents.
ISLAM GUL
VS
MST. NALEEM AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 5,7(2)
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched. & S. 7(2)---Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles, dower and maintenance allowance---Khula, announcement of---Procedure---Additional evidence, production of---Scope---Family Court decreed the suit against which appeal was filed wherein appellant moved an application for additional evidence but same was dismissed---Validity---Wife at her own could not announce or award khula---Family Court could dissolve marriage on the basis of khula on the request of wife---Family Court could not allow additional evidence or add names of witnesses in the schedule of witnesses---Parties with the permission of Court could call any witness at any later stage if Court considered such evidence expedient in the interest of justice---Family Court or Appellate Court could not re-open schedule of witnesses submitted by the parties---Defendant (husband) remained silent during the trial of case despite ample opportunity to produce any witness in his defence---Defendant had neglected his wife and had entered into second marriage---Father of plaintiff was businessman and delivery of dowry articles as per list annexed with the plaint could not be denied---Nothing was on record that plaintiff had taken back the dowry articles---Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and arrived at proper conclusions while passing the impugned s and decrees---No jurisdictional error had been pointed out in the impugned s and decrees passed by the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Sajid Ullah v. Mst. Shakeela Naz PLD 2016 Pesh. 1; Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others 2003 CLC 1787; Muhammad Azeem v. Nasreen Bibi 2018 YLR 761; Sher Baz Khan and others PLD 2003 SC 849; Faiz Muhammad through legal representatives and others v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi PLD 2009 Lah. 41 and Mirza Arshad Baig v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others 2005 SCMR 1740 rel. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 7(2)---Additional evidence, production of---Scope---Family Court could not allow additional evidence or add names of witnesses in the schedule of…
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