| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3246 = 1980 SLD 3246 = 1980 CLC 1635 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition. No. 2269 of 1974 heard on 22nd December 1975.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
S. M. Mohsim Zaidi for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2. Ch. Mohammad Hassan for respondents.
Writ Petition. No. 2269 of 1974 heard on 22nd December 1975.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
S. M. Mohsim Zaidi for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2. Ch. Mohammad Hassan for respondents.
Ch. ABDUL HAFIZ-Petitioner
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE No. 5, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER---Respondents
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: 7 (3)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) S. 7 (3)-Arbitration Council. jurisdiction of-Arbitration Council passing decree for money in lieu of dowry-Such decree, held, without jurisdiction-Pray course for Arbitration Council to leave such matte, to be decided by proper forums---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. [Jurisdiction] Date of hearing : 22nd December 1975. JUDGMENT A husband has through this Writ Petition called in question order of the Arbitration Council constituted under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, passed on 13th July 1974 whereby, while granting the certificate that the attempt at reconciliation on a notice of divorce by the petitioner to the respondent had failed and divorce had become effective, the Council also passed decree against the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 25,141 as value of her dowry allegedly forcibly snatched/retained and misappropriated by the petitioner. On the last hearing learned counsel for respondent No. 2 had con tended that even if the Arbitration Counsel had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for money in lieu of dowry, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this court on account of the facts mentioned in the impugned order. He had pointed out that according to the impugned order the petitioner had while forcibly snatching/ retaining the dowry of the petitioner. removed the bangles from her hands so much so that marks of physical violence on her hands, in this behalf, were visible. It was also pointed out that the petitioner did not appear before the Arbitration Council to controvert the allegations and assertion made by the respondent that her…