Law: Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) (Repeal) Act, 2006

Section: 188 & 185

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section:

(a) Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance (II of 2000)------Preamble---Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Act (V of 2003), Preamble--Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Arts. 188 & 185---Review of Supreme Court ---Contentions of the petitioner were that petition in the case was heard by a Bench of Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and after conclusion of the arguments the petition was allowed in open Court which was noted by the Court Associate on the original file by writing the word "allowed" that said order, which was announced, was reported in the print and electronic media, as such the same could not be ignored; that for re-hearing the matter the Bench should have been constituted of the Judges, who heard and decided the matter then: that the Ulema Judges of the Supreme Court were also required to be the members of the Bench; that offering food to the, guests at marriage ceremony did not fall within the scope of "Asraaf"; that it was almost mandatory in the light of sayings of the Holy Prophet that there may be some festivity, which included offering of food to the guests, who had come to join marriage ceremony; that there were lots of other occasions apart from marriage where rich food was served like 'Chehlum etc.' and no such embargo had been imposed thereon: as such there was no justification whatsoever for such restriction on meals during marriage ceremony and that serving of meals did not create any burden on the host because the persons participating in the marriage contribute towards expenses---Validity---Held, allegedly announced was not a in the eye of law, neither it was written nor signed and solitary word "allowed" appearing on the title of the file could not confer on it legal status of a valid , such being not a within the meaning of taw, as such the matter was re�heard---So many other cases like the present one had been heard afresh by the Supreme Court after retirement of the Judges, who failed to deliver the , as was required under the law---Mere fact that some reports appeared in the print and…