Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: XXXV,5

(a)    Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) -------S.5, Sched. --- Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles --- Offer/proposal for decision of a lis on the basis of special oath on Holy Quran --- Petitioner (husband) stated that if wife and her family administered special oath on Holy Quran regarding veracity of her claim then he would have no objection ifher suits were decreed---Such an offer is not for all times to come --- If a party choses to proceed to next stages of trial by leaving behind such offer/proposal, it would be deemed to be ineffective and cannot be pressed at a belated stage of trial---Offer/proposal made by the petitioner was not for all times to come and there was no mutuality of promise between the parties---When an offer/proposal was made by the petitioner and it was not accepted by the adversary at the same stage of trial, it would be deemed that agreement between the parties could not mature---Furthermore, delay and further proceedings in the suits would lead to the conclusion that the offer/proposal was refused by the other party by an act and omission --Impugned order passed by Family Court was set-aside --- Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.(b)    Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles---Offer/proposal for decision of a lis on the basis of special oath on Holy Quran---Offer/proposal, refusal of --- Implied refusal and express refusal --- Principle ---Refusal can be either expressed or implied---An express refusal is a clear and direct statement rejecting an offer/proposal---An implied refusal, on the other hand, is established through actions, behavior or silence that indicates the party's unwillingness to accept the same---In the present case when the parties had chosen to move to next stages of trial while leaving behind the offer/proposal without acceptance, the offer/proposal would be deemed to be ineffective, meaning thereby respondent No.2 missed the train by not expressly accepting the offer/proposal promptly.Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2025.JUDGMENTMALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN,…