Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLD 775 = 1995 CLC 1524
Lahore High Court
Intra-Court Appeal No. 55 of 1995 in Writ Petition No. 8810 of 1994, heard on 19th March, 1995.
Presented By: Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Sharif Hussain Bokhari, JJ
A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

Dr. Syed QAMBAR MURTAZA BOKHARI---Petitioner

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN,  ARBITRATION      AND RECONCILIATION  COMITTEE,  LAHORE  and another---Respondents

Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: 7 , 8

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----Ss.     7      &     8---Notice  of Talaq---Effectiveness---Essentials---Arbitration Council---Jurisdiction---Scope---Where notice of Talaq was served upon Chairman, Arbitration Council, and same was not withdrawn expressly or impliedly within 90 days with effect from service of notice, Talaq would automatically become effective---Even if Chairman, Arbitration Council, had not written in his order the consequence being provided in the law, itself, result would be the same  Chairman, Arbitration Council had, thus, not exceeded in its authority/jurisdiction while dealing with notice of Talaq served upon Chairman by respondent---Arbitration Council having not determined controversial question relating to validity of notice etc. had rather acted in consonance of law by writing in, its order that its effort of reconciliation had failed---Such being correct statement of law could not be struck down in circumstances. Mullah's Mohemmadan Law, paras. 30, 32; Syed Ali Nawaz Gardezi v. Lt.-Col. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 1963 SC 51; Dr. Razia v. Mushir Ahmad Pesh Imam 1988 CLC 467; Ahmad Nadeem v. Chairman Arbitration Council 1991 MLD 1198; Fahmida Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad PLD 1972 Lah. 694 and Zakia Frooq v. Chairman, Union Council 1991 CLC 1720 rel.     Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----Ss. 7 & 8---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Intra-Court Appeal---Complicated 'question of fact and law raised in appeal ---Effect-- Chairman, Arbitration Council had decided the only question of which he had the jurisdiction, that conciliation between the parties had not been effected within specified time---Appellant had challenged such question before High Court in Constitutional petition---Questions relating to faith of parties and genuineness of Nikahnama being not within the jurisdiction of Arbitration Council, could not have been gone into either by the Arbitration Council or while deciding validity of such findings, by the High Court---Such complicated questions could only be decided by the competent forum constituted for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register