Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1528 1993 SLD 1528 = 1993 PLD 358
Lahore High Court
W.P. No.3133 of 1993, decided on 29th March,.1993.
Presented By: Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J
Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioner

MUHAMMAD IHSAN --- Petitionei

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD IMRAN (MINOR) and 4 others --- Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5 , 25

Law: Muhammadan Law

Section:

  West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)- ---- S. 5 & Sched.-- -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 --- Concurrent findings of Courts below after scanning of whole evidence to the effect that husband was liable to pay amount of dower to wife --- Husband's plea that he had already paid the amount of dower was disbelieved by the Courts --- High Court, in Constitutional petition was not competent to enter into reappraisal of evidence, therefore, in absence of misreading/non-reading of evidence, concurrent findings of fact, rendered by Courts below could not be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ---- S. 5 & Sched. ---Civil Procedure Code (V Of 1.908), 0 XXIII R. 3 --- Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.28 --- Compromise in previous litigation to the effect that Parties would not agitate their disputes in Courts of law would not debar the wife to file proceedings for recovery of dower as also payment of maintenance for her minor children for cause of action being recurrent, no lawful contract could be entered into whereby, parties were to be debarred from approaching the Court of law --- Nothing in previous litigation was pointed out to infer that wife had relinquished her dower amount. Muhammadan Law--- ---- Dower --- Wife is competent to relinquish her right to recover dower. Mulla's Mahomedan Law, Vol. 4, S.291 rel. West Pakistan Family Courts Act (xxxv or 1964)--- ---- S. 5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXIV, R. 1 --- Claim related to maintenance of two minor children --- Issue framed by Trial Court. mentioned only one child --- Effect --- Parties understood the controversy- - Maintenance had been claimed for both the children--- Evidence had also been led relating to both the minors, therefore, no prejudice was proved to have been caused to the husband if the name of   one child was not mentioned in the issue which was never sought to be amended by either of the parties to the lis. West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)- ---- S. 5 & sched.-- -Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25 --- Payment of maintenance to minors…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register