| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1793 = 1991 CLC 1647 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.193 of 1990, decided on 26th February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No.193 of 1990, decided on 26th February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD SADIQ---Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. BASHIRAN and others---Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 5
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5 & Sched.---Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'---Appellate Court, while decreeing wife's suit on ground of Khula`, did not find husband entitled to restoration of benefits---Validity---Husband, although in written statement, had categorically asserted that wife had taken away golden ornaments and a specified amount, yet no demand was made by him, either in written statement or as a witness for restoration of those benefits---Appellate Court was thus, correct in observing that no benefits were to be restored to husband-- Petition against grant of Khula` by Appellate Court was dismissed in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari and another P L D 1989 Lah. 31 rel. Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. ORDER Respondent No.l Mst. Bashiran was given in marriage to Muhammad Sadiq petitioner about fifteen years ago. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner inter alia on the ground of Khula`. The petitioner also instituted a suit praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Both these suits were tried together and the Family Court after framing as many as fifteen issues recorded evidence of the parties. On 19th September, 1988 the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed while that of dissolution of marriage .was dismissed by the learned Family Court. Aggrieved by this judgment, respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the…