Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3039 = 1980 SLD 3039 = 1980 PCRLJ 393
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 675 of 1978, decided on 27th May. 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Mian Abdur Rashid for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1. Syed Waheed-ur-Rehman Gllani for
Respondent No. 2.

MUHAMMAD ASHIQ-Petitioner

VERSUS

SALIM AKHTAR MALIK AND ANOTHER--Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 111

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ-Petitioner (accused) summoned ~ only for offence under S. 506, P. P. C. and not for offences of forgery and fraud alleged in complaint-Order of summoning, held, not last word on question of guilt or otherwise of accused qua all allegations made in complaint-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 506. (b) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 111-Burden of proof-Observations of lower Court regarding onus of proof (although, prima facie wrongly placed) being of no consequence due to both parties having led evidence-Such approach, held, cannot be considered illegal and has no effect on appreciation of evidence.-[Burden of proof]. Dates of hearing : 26th and 27th May, 1979.                                                                                                                JUDGMENT An order passed by a learned Additional District Judge in appeal filed under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, setting aside the dismissal of a suit for jactitation of marriage filed by the respondent, No. 2 has been called in question through this writ petition. 2. The petitioner claimed that the respondent No. 2 was his wife. The respondent No. 2 denied the factum of nikah and marriage and instituted a suit- within about a month for jactitation of marriage, claiming therein that the alleged nikah was the result of deceit and fraud and that, in fact, she was never married to the defendant (petitioner herein). The petitioner in his written statement relied on the alleged nikah which, according to him, was duly performed by a nikah khan in presence of witnesses. The petitioner also relied on an affidavit alleged to have been sworn by the respondent No. 2. 3. Learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the respondent No. 2's suit on 1-7-1976. In appeal however, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were reversed. The suit of the respondent No. 2 was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register