Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 1315 1996 SLD 1315 1996 PLD 58
Lahore High Court
Intra-Court Appeal No. 67 of , 1995, decided on 1st November, 1995.
RIAZ HUSSAIN AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JJ
Muhammad Irshad Khan and Aniqa Mughis Sheikh for Appellants. Athar Rehman Khan for
Respondent. Muhammad Abdullah Yusuf Warraich, Addl. A.G. for the State.

MUHAMMAD HANIF and others --Appellants

VS

MUKARRAM KHAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)­ ---- A rt. 199 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A-Constitutional petition --- Interference in police investigation --- High Court proceeding under Art. 199 of the Constitution or under S.561-A, Cr.p.c. should ordinarily not pass orders in matters exclusively preserved for the, Police Department. Mst. Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Sindh PLD 1971 SC 677; AIR 1945 PC 18 and Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and others v. Ghulam Qasim. Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1984 SC 231 ref. (b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-­ ---- S.7 --- Failure to give notice of divorce---Effect --- Notice of divorce to the Chairman, Local Council being not mandatory under the Injunctions of Islam, failure to send such notice to the Chairman of Local Council does not make the divorce ineffective in Shariah, and the marriage of such a divorced woman with a third person after the expiry of the necessary period of Iddat is not invalid. Allah Dad v. Mukhtar and another 1992 SCMR 1273; Mst. Zahida Shaheen and another v. The State and another 1994 SCMR 2098 and Mst.. Kaneez Fatima v. Wali Muhammad and another PLD 1993 SC 901 ret (c) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)­ -- -S. 10 --West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV ot 19"), S-5 & Sched.--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Constitutiona) petition --- Factual controversy- -Scope of enquiry in Constitutional jurisdiciton of High Court suit for jactitation of marriage having been filed by the lady accused, issues about the divorce and her subsequent marriage with co-accused were to be decided by the Family Court after recording evidence which had the exclusive jurisdiction under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 --- High Court, therefore, in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could not enter into such exercise which of necessity entailed a factual inquiry --- Judgment delivered by the Judge in Chamber touching upon the disputed questions of fact was beyond the ambit of Art. 199 of the Constitution and not in consonance with the law declared by the Supreme Court and the same was consequently set aside. Mst.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492