| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 280 2022 SLD 280 2022 CLC 24 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 32191 of 2021, heard on 30-06-2021
SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Iftikhar Ahmad Mian
Respondent(s) by: Ghulam Rasool Sial for
Respondent No. 1.
Writ Petition No. 32191 of 2021, heard on 30-06-2021
SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Iftikhar Ahmad Mian
Respondent(s) by: Ghulam Rasool Sial for
Respondent No. 1.
MUJAHID KAMRANVSMST. SAIRA AZIZ AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: 5&9
(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----Ss.5 9---Nikahnama, contents of---Suit for recovery of maintenance/dower amount---Column No. 20 of Nikahnama---Entry of Rs.25,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance---Allegation of cruelty by husband/defendant claimed for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed a suit for cancellation of conditions/entries of Columns Nos. 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of Nikahnama on the ground that the same were illegal and incorporated without his consent in deceitful manner---Family Court partially decreed the respondent’s suit to the extent of entitlement of the recovery of maintenance at rate of Rs.25,000/- per month with 10% annual increase from date of marriage till the date of ’s suit was dismissed---Appeals filed by both parties were also dismissed---Validity---Wife could be justified in living separately if the husband treated her with cruelty or did not pay prompt dower---No disagreement or point of cruelty was quoted/proved by respondent other than the demand of dower---No particular point cited/proved by petitioner as to alleged disobedience except the allegation that respondent remained only one day in his house did not prove his version that columns of Nikahnama were afterwards filled in and were the result of forgery---All witnesses of Nikahnama admitted their signatures over the same had not proved that the copy of Nikahnama was not given to him at that time was bound to pay maintenance allowance according to column No. 20---Case of respondent was based on column No. 20, which could not be dealt with under the conditions of S.17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Neither the Court had to see the financial status of husband nor to fix the maintenance on the conditions mentioned in S.17A---Order as to 10% annual increase was not according to the spirit of Column No. 20 of Nikahnama---Date and Majlis of Nikah and signatures on Nikahnama by respective person were admitted---Execution of Nikahnama was proved by the respondent---Nikahkhwan, appearing as witness, had certified that all the columns were filled at that time with consent of parties---Presumption would be that the Nikah Pert (paper) was handed over to…
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