| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 412 = 1990 CLC 30 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No.40 of 1989, decided on 24th September, 1989.
Presented By: Before Raza Ahmad Khan and Syed ]bite Ali, JJ
Sardar Nasir Aslant Khan for Petitioner. Saleh Mehmood for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No.40 of 1989, decided on 24th September, 1989.
Presented By: Before Raza Ahmad Khan and Syed ]bite Ali, JJ
Sardar Nasir Aslant Khan for Petitioner. Saleh Mehmood for
Respondents.
RAFIQ HUSSAIN SHAH--Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI and another--Respondents
Law: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)
Section: 2
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)-- ---( 2---Khula'--Wife's right to seek divorce on the principle of `Khula' is not contingent on the consent of husband but is dependent upon reaching a conclusion on the part of judge, that spouses can no longer live within the limit of God--Grounds mentioned in S.2, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, could be taken by a wife, besides the ground of her aversion against the husband and in case she fails to substantiate such grounds, still her plea of aversion cannot be brushed aside on that score alone--Court has to arrive at a conclusion whether. as per facts on record, husband and wife can or cannot live together in harmony or conformity with their obligations and as such within limits of God--Once the answer is in negative, Court can order separation of spouses by `Khula' disagreement of husband to such a course, notwithstanding [Muhammadan Law. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)-- ---S. 2---Dissolution of marriage---Grounds--Wife, besides ground of Khula, can 'also take grounds for dissolution of marriage as mentioned in S.2, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and in case shy fails to substantiate such grounds. still her plea of aversion cannot be brushed aside on that score alone.- [Muhammadan Law--Khula']. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)-- ---S. 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ArL199--Constitutional jurisdiction- Interference--High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction would only interfere when Court or Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction or in violation of relevant statute or law ac laid down by Superior Courts--Judgment and decree of Family Court having attained finality, mere fact that on re-appraisal of evidence, High Court might come to a different conclusion, would not make decision of Trial Court without jurisdiction. Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and others PLD 1981 SC 522 ref. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)-- ---S. 2---Khula'---Record showed that wife at no cost was prepared to live with her husband which fact by itself was sufficient to manifest the extreme dislike for, and aversion…