Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 3007 = 1982 SLD 3007 = 1982 CLC 22
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 3273 of 1981, decided on 7th July, 1981.
Presented By: Muhammad Ilyas, J
Rana Abdul Majeed for Petitioner.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. SAFIA BIBI AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 17

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9, O.IX

(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) S. 17 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9 and O. IX-Provisions of S. 9 and O. IX of C. P. C. not applicable to Family Courts. Mist. Hawabai and 6 others v. Abdus Shakoor and 8 others P L D 1970 Kar. 367 distinguished. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) And West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965-Penal action cannot be taken against a party unless warranted by express provisions of law-No provisions in Act or Rules justifying such action.                                                                                                                                                    JUDGMENT The first respondent, Mst. Safia Bibi, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, filed a suit against the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, for dis solution of her marriage, before a Family Court. The suit was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the said Family Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. This plea of the petitioner had found favour with the Family Court. As a result, the plaint was returned to the respon dent, under rule 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. The respondent then presented a fresh plaint before another Family Court. In the suit thus filed by her. an ex paste decree was passed against the petitioner. That decree has been challenged by him by means of the Constitutions, petition in hand. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit in which the decree was granted was not competent inasmuch as the plaint of that suit was not the same which had been returned by the Family Court before which the suit was initially filed by the respondent and, therefore, the said decree was of no legal effect. In this connection, he placed reliance on Mst. Hawabai and 6 others v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register