Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2566 2007 SLD 2566 2007 CLC 1131 2007 PLJ 1172
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.2838 of 2007, decision dated: 29-03-2007.
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ABDUL JABBAR

VS

KALSOOM BIBI and another

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 10(4)

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 10(4)

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 10(4), Proviso [as added by Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance (LV of 2002)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Conflict of s---Suit for dissolution of marriage by wife -and for restitution of conjugal rights by husband tried by two separate courts---Former suit was decreed, in view of proviso to S.10(4) of the Act, against husband while the latter was decreed in his favour--Validity---Proviso to S.10(4) of Family Courts Act, 1964 has an overriding effect which states that no decision or of any court or Tribunal shall be an impediment, therefore right granted for dissolution of marriage is absolute and contingent only upon restoration of haq mehr to the husband and nothing else---Family Court had rightly dissolved the marriage after restoring haq mehr to husband---Decree for dissolution of marriage was earlier in time therefore husband was bound to disclose said decree to Family Court trying the suit for restitution of conjugal rights but this was not done---Held, husband could not reap benefit of his own fault; even otherwise, in view of dissolution of marriage by Family Court, the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was legally ineffective. Anwari Begum alias Khalida Anwar v. Additional District Judge Lyallpur and others 1988 CLC 1641 distinguished. Q.M. Saleem for Petitioner. ORDER SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The petitioner was married with respondent No.1 about 13 years ago, of the wedlock, three sons and a daughter were born. The spouses lived happily for a short while, thereafter the petitioner started suspecting the character of the respondent No.1, and thus, harmony vanished. The respondent No.1 filed suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner made efforts to revive the union and filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Unfortunately, both suits were tried by separate Courts and were never consolidated. The Family Court trying the suit for dissolution of marriage, made efforts for reconciliation but upon failure, exercising powers under proviso to section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, dissolved the marriage. Hence the present petition by…
🔒
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