Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of alimony--- Nikahnama, Cl. 19---Scope---Sole ground to challenge Cl. 19 was the decree passed on the basis of Cl. 19 of Nikahnama, wherein parties had mutually agreed that in case of an unreasoned divorce, declared by petitioner to his wife, petitioner would provide gold ornaments/finances as specified therein---Contention of petitioner was that the condition imposed in the Nikahnama was contrary to the law and Islamic Injunctions---Validity---Financial benefits agreed mutually were in the nature of reasonable financial support for setting the wife free---Nikahnama was a civil contract between the parties, both of which were at liberty to agree to the terms of arrangement---Clause 19, as available in Nikahnama, was not in the nature of absolute bar qua right to divorce---Petitioner had divorced the wife, which manifested that no bar to divorce was imposed---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Muhammad Sajjad v. ADJ and others PLJ 2021 Lahore 485; Muhammad Bashir Ali Siddiqui v. Mst. Sarwar Jahan Begum and another 2008 SCMR 186; Rukhsana Ambreen v. District and Sessions Judge, Khushab and 2 others 2021 CLC 1512 and Muhammad Ahmad v. Additional District, Judge and others 2019 CLC 89 distinguished. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Matters arising out of Cl.19 of Nikahnama---Scope---No restriction existed that husband cannot agree to arrange for maintenance or agree to extend fiscal advantage to the wife, even after the divorce---Such nature of the benefit/advantage, which in any manner is not restricting the right of divorce, is in fact an act of bestowing benefit or gift upon wife to support her, hence, cannot be termed as illegal or contrary to the Spirit of Islam and Teachings of Holy Quran---Concept of alimony is not alien to the Islam---Financial support agreed to in Cl. 19 cannot be construed as encumbrance or clog on the right to divorce but manifests sense of continuing responsibility and affection, which cannot be construed as continuing maintenance allowance beyond the period of iddat. ORDER ASIM HAFEEZ, J.----The sole ground under challenge is 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