Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 3169 = 2001 SLD 3169 = 2001 CLC 567
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.9477 of 1999, heard on 4th October, 2000.
Presented By: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
Qazi Khalid Pervez for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents Nos.2 to 6: Ex parte.

MAQSOOD AHMAD---Petitioner

VERSUS

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BUREWALA and 5 others---Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, 10, 17

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) S. 5, Sched. Ss. 10 & 17---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance-- Striking off defence for . non-filing of written statement---Defence of defendant was struck off for non-filing of his written statement ---Validity---Provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 or rules framed thereunder having nowhere authorised Family Court to strike off defence of defendant on non-filing of his written statement, order striking off defence of defendant was declared to be illegal by the High Court. Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Zaubida Bibi and another 1990 ALD 180 and Muhammad Ashraf v. Nasreen Begum PLD 1989 Lah. 69 ref. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2000.                                                                                                                                                                       JUDGMENT This instant writ petition has been filed to call in question the order, dated 31-3-1999 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.2' to 6 had instituted a suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance against the petitioner/defendant in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Burewala on 24-9-1998. The petitioner failed to submit his written statement despite repeated opportunities were provided by the Court, therefore, his defence was struck off by respondent No. l vide order, dated 31-3-1999 and the petitioner/defendant filed an application for review of the abovesaid order which was also dismissed on 26-7-1999. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of the fact that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register