Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Khula---Maintenance for wife---Wedlock as well as the fact that rukhsati did not take place were admitted, however, the only dispute between the parties was of maintenance charges---Plea of misreading and non-reading of evidence was raised but could not be referred or showed---Petitioner (husband) in his written statement admitted that he initially started sending maintenance charges to the respondent (wife) for some period during which he kept the respondent on hopes to arrange for her to travel abroad to live together but he failed---Since the respondent was ready to join/live with the petitioner but the petitioner in his written statement admitted that he could not arrange a visa for the respondent to live with him, therefore, he left her with no option but to seek Kula as a girl could not be made to sit for hopes of rukhsati for indefinite period---Bare reading of Ayat No.48 of Surah-Ahzab of the Holy Quran reflects that despite of wedlock if the husband has not touched the wife even then he is directed to release the wife handsomely---Concurrent findings of two Courts below did not require any interference, hence this petition was dismissed. JUDGMENT AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.----Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. 2. Precisely the facts leading to the case are that petitioner and respondent No.1 knot in the wedlock on 11.3.2012 against dower amount of Rs.50,000/-, however, rukhsati did not take place since the petitioner Najam-ur-Rehman had moved abroad and did not return on one pretext or the other. Consequently, the respondent No.1 Mst. Masooma Hassan filed Family Suit No.38 of 2018 for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula with maintenance charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month w.e.f February, 2013 to December, 2017, which suit was decreed vide judgment dated 07.05.2019 by the learned 1st Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (West) and such order was also maintained vide order dated 28.1.2020 by learned IXth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) in Family Appeal No.48/2019 filed by the petitioner, hence petitioner assailed the concurrent findings…

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