Concord partners Corporate and Legal Consultants

29/03/2026

A highly commendable and deeply thoughtful judgment by the Honourable Lahore High Court in Tanvir Abbas v. Nabila Akbar, arising out of proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, once again bringing to the fore the delicate and often complex overlap between criminal liability and family law disputes.

As is evident from the judgment, the petitioner remained entangled in litigation since 2019, enduring nearly seven years of continuous proceedings spanning trial, appeal, and subsequent stages. Such protracted litigation, particularly in matters rooted in family discord, is not merely a legal journey but an exhausting personal ordeal impacting dignity, relationships, and emotional well-being. The Honourable Court’s clear acknowledgment of this prolonged hardship reflects a commendable degree of judicial awareness and sensitivity.

What truly distinguishes this judgment is the exceptional restraint, balance, and judicial maturity demonstrated in the matter of sentencing. While maintaining the conviction on merits, the Honourable Court was pleased to extend substantial relief by reducing the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, expressly taking into account the mitigating circumstances, including the prolonged duration of proceedings and the cumulative hardship already suffered by the petitioner. This calibrated approach underscores that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise, but one that must remain responsive to context, proportionality, and fairness.

Equally significant is the Court’s recognition that in family-related prosecutions, justice cannot be reduced to a purely punitive construct. The judgment reflects a pragmatic, humane, and enlightened approach, appreciating that within the family law domain, the consequences of litigation extend far beyond the courtroom. The objective, therefore, must remain not only the enforcement of legal obligations but also the grant of relief that is just, proportionate, and mindful of the lived realities of the parties involved.

This very proposition that prolonged exposure to criminal proceedings itself constitutes a relevant mitigating factor was effectively canvassed and ultimately vindicated through the arguments advanced by Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court, on behalf of the petitioner.

A finely balanced and principled decision, and a fine example of how judicial discretion when exercised with wisdom, compassion, and restraint can harmonize the rigours of law with the imperatives of fairness, dignity, and human reality.

29/03/2026

بیرون ملک سے طلاق کا طریقہ کار

The procedure, if a husband wants to get separation from his wife but he is living abroad?
This procedure has been prescribed in a recent Judgement by .

1. will send a power of attorney to his lawyer.

2. should be attested from the Pakistani embassy or consulate of the country where he is residing.

3. Where a lawyer the power of attorney, he will proceed according to law.

4. of overseas divorce in Pakistan are conducted in Arbitration council.

5. Minimum 90 days proceedings will be
conducted by lawyer in .

6. After the proceedings of overseas divorce in
Pakistan, a divorce certificate will be issued by
NADRA through arbitration council and this certificate is considered as sole and only proof of

13/09/2023

2023 SCMR 153

فیملی کورٹ میں اگر حلف کی پیشکش دوسرا فریق قبول کرلے تو پھر اسکی پابندی لازم ہے اور اس سے منحرف نہ ہوا جاسکتا ہے

Section 14 and Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 and Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873.

Binding effect of an offer of special oath, if accepted by the other party.

It is a self-confessed position that the petitioner filed an application for special oath which was accepted by the respondent No.1 and the special oath was taken in the mode and manner proposed by the petitioner. Nevertheless, under Section 17 of the 1964 Act, the application of the QSO 1984 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), except Sections 10 and 11 have been excluded and made inapplicable to the proceedings before the Family Court in respect of Part-I of the Schedule, but concomitantly under Sub-section (2) of Section 17, it is enumerated in tandem that Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873 (“Oaths Act”) shall apply to all proceedings before the Family Court. The power of the Court to tender certain oaths is provided in Section 8 of the Oaths Act which envisages that if any party to, or witness in, any judicial proceeding offers to give evidence on oath or solemn affirmation in any form common amongst, or held binding by, persons of the race or persuasion to which he belongs, and not repugnant to justice or decency, and not purporting to affect any third person, the Court may, if it thinks fit, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, tender such oath or affirmation to him. Whereas under Section 9 of the Oaths Act, if any party to any judicial proceeding offers to be bound by any such oath or solemn affirmation as is mentioned in Section 8 if such oath or affirmation is made by the other party to, or by any witness in, such proceeding, the Court may, if it thinks fit, ask such party or witness, or cause him to be asked, whether or not he will make the oath or affirmation provided that no party or witness shall be compelled to attend personally in Court solely for the purpose of answering such question. So far as the conclusiveness and unwaveringness of evidence as against the person offering to be bound is concerned, Section 11 elucidates lucidly and unambiguously that the evidence so given shall, as against the person who offered to be bound as aforesaid, be conclusive proof of the matter stated. The phraseology “conclusive proof” brings into play inconspicuously the general principle of estoppel and sets forth that a party, who offers to be bound by the evidence given by the opposite party or a witness on special oath, shall not have the right to challenge the evidence which shall be conclusive and definitive proof of the matter.

The letter of the law makes it unequivocally clear that under the provisions of the Oaths Act, a party in litigation can offer the opposite party to accept or reject the claim on special oath, but they cannot compel each other to take the special oath, however if the offer is accepted by the other party then a binding agreement comes into existence and the party making the offer has no right and authority in law to resile from it. When the Court communicates the offer to the other party and gets hold of his assent or refusal, as the case may be, it in fact plays a role as an intermediary between the parties and when the offer is accepted by the other party, the acceptance is transmitted to the party inviting the other to take special oath, thereafter the agreement is completed between the parties unless the offer is withdrawn before its acceptance by the other side. The stipulations of the Oaths Act cannot be construed to give an unfair or inequitable advantage to one party over the other, so in the event of an offer or proposal to be bound by the oath of the opposite party, then obviously, due to the mutuality of the promise between them, the party making an offer has no right to resile from it after the offer is accepted and the special oath is taken. In the absence of any such satisfactory or sufficient cause the Court is obligated to implement the agreement and to record the statement of the party concerned to make a decision in the case accordingly. The petitioner cannot wriggle out or withdraw his offer which was given by him voluntarily before the Family Court and the same acted upon according to his will.

08/09/2023

2022 PCrLJ 1188

لاہور ہائیکورٹ کےجسٹس علی ضیا باجوہ نے امیر بخش کی درخواست خارج کرنے کا فیصلہ جاری کیا۔

درخواست گزار کا موقف تھا کہ اس کی سابق بیوی آمنہ نے عدالت سے تنسیخ نکاح کا یکطرفہ فیصلہ لیا اور اگلے روز اسماعیل نامی شخص سے شادی کرلی۔

درخواست میں موقف اپنایا گیا کہ عدت مکمل کیے بغیر اگلا نکاح کرنا زنا کے زمرے میں آتا ہے اس لیے زنا کا مقدمہ درج کروایا جائے۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ درخواست گزار کا موقف درست مان بھی لیا جائے تب بھی شادی باطل نہیں۔ عدت مکمل کیے بغیر ہونے والی شادی کو بے قاعدہ تو کہا جاسکتا ہے لیکن وہ باطل نہیں۔ اس لیے جوڑے کو زنا کا مرتکب قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا

Marriage without observing the period of Iddah does not entail commission of cognizable offence as defined under section 4 and punishable under section 5 of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

08/09/2023

We're thrilled to announce that Concord Partners LLP is now an officially registered law firm, ready to provide comprehensive legal services spanning civil, family, and criminal litigations, corporate compliance, company registration, trademark, patent, and copyright registration, as well as expert handling of International and domestic arbitrations. Additionally, we specialize in real estate litigation, assisting you in obtaining possession of your lands/plots in renowned societies in Islamabad. Our seasoned legal team is committed to delivering personalized and results-driven solutions to meet your unique needs. Whether it's protecting your intellectual property, resolving disputes, or securing your real estate interests,/investments ,Concord Partners LLP is your trusted partner for navigating the legal landscape, ensuring your rights are safeguarded and enforced with dedication and expertise.

26/06/2023

🔒 Protect Your Intellectual Property with Concord Partners! Register Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents before IPO Pakistan! 🔒

Calling all Pakistani entrepreneurs and innovators!

Are you prepared to unleash your incredible ideas and groundbreaking inventions? Before you embark on the exciting journey of IPO Pakistan, it's vital to safeguard your intellectual property rights. At Concord Partners, a leading law firm specializing in intellectual property law, we strongly urge you to register your trademarks, copyrights, and patents without delay.

Why prioritize intellectual property protection with Concord Partners?

1️⃣ Preserve Your Unique Identity: With our expertise in trademark registration, we ensure your brand name, logo, and slogans remain exclusively yours. Establish trust, recognition, and set yourself apart from competitors.

2️⃣ Safeguard Your Creative Works: Our copyright registration services shield your original artistic, literary, and musical creations from unauthorized use or reproduction. Maintain control over your creative endeavors and prevent others from profiting from your hard work.

3️⃣ Secure Innovation and Invention: Through our comprehensive patent services, we provide the ultimate protection for your inventions and technological breakthroughs. Gain exclusive rights to your innovative products or processes, giving you a competitive edge and the ability to capitalize on your ingenuity.

4️⃣ Enhance Business Value: A strong intellectual property portfolio significantly increases the value of your business. Potential investors and partners are more likely to be attracted to your venture when they see that Concord Partners has helped you secure valuable intangible assets.

With IPO Pakistan just around the corner, there has never been a more critical time to prioritize intellectual property protection. Failing to register your trademarks, copyrights, and patents beforehand could leave your innovative ideas vulnerable to theft, infringement, or unauthorized usage.

At Concord Partners, our team of experienced lawyers is well-versed in Pakistan's intellectual property laws. We are here to guide and assist you throughout the registration process, ensuring you understand your rights and navigating the complexities of intellectual property law with ease.

Don't wait any longer! Take control of your intellectual property rights today with Concord Partners. Contact us now to schedule a consultation, and let's discuss the best strategies to protect your innovative ideas before IPO Pakistan.

Remember, at Concord Partners, we believe in safeguarding your ideas with utmost dedication. Register your trademarks, copyrights, and patents now!

16/07/2022

16/07/2022

The democracy can neither work nor prosper unless people go to share and formulate their views and opinions on a proper basis and to exercise their social, economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner. Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan gives freedom of speech and expression to its citizen because a free exchange of ideas, thoughts, dissemination of information without restrains, dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing viewpoints, debating and forming one’s own views and expressing them, are the basic indicator of a free and democratic society.

Freedom of Speech, Press and Journalism in Pakistan

10/06/2022

پلیڈنگز کو، شہادت Conseder نہ کیا جا سکتا ہے، بلکہ فریقین کا Pleading کو بذریعہ شہادت ثابت کرنا ہو گا۔
(2020 SCMR 202).
کسی کو بھی Pleadings سے ہٹ کر، شہادت پیش کرنے کی اجازت نہ دی جا سکتی ہے۔
(2019 YLR 547).
دوران اپیل، کسی ایسی Plea پر، بحث نہ ہو سکتی ہے، جو کہ Pleadings میں نہ لی گی ہو ۔
(2019 YLR 902).
جواب دعویٰ میں، تسلیم کردہ کسی Fact کو ثابت کرنے کی ضرورت نہ ہے.
(2015 SCMR 21).
اگر مدعی یا مدعا علیہ کو، بطور گواہ پیش نہ کیا جاۓ، تو Pleading کو بطور شہادت استعمال نہ کیا جا سکتا ہے
(2015 YLR 2656).

ANCHAN LAW Corporate and Legal Consultants Services Area of Practice Banking and Finance We are experienced in dealing the matters related to banking and finance. Family and Divorce Matters Anchan Law is expert in dealing with divorce matters, child guardians, and maintenance. Cyber Crimes We deal w...

21/11/2021

گلگت بلستان چیف کورٹ نے زاہد بنام سرکار قتل کیس میں حکم دیا کہ "اگر ملزم کی ضمانت دورانِ تفتیش بے گناہ ہونے کی بناء پر ہوئی ہو تو دوسرے ملزمان کے لئے Rule of Consistency کا اطلاق نہ ہو گا."
(2017 MLD 40).
کراچی ہائی کورٹ سندھ نے شہزاد بنام سرکار، ڈکیتی کیس میں حکم دیا کہ " ملزم کو منسوب رول اگر مختلف ہو، تو Rule of Consistency کی بناء پر ملزم ضمانت کا حقدار نہ ہو گا.
(2014 PCrLJ 1002).
کراچی ہائی کورٹ سندھ نے جواد بنام سرکار، دفعہ 324 ت پ کیس میں ملزم کو Rule of Consistency کی بناء پر ضمانت منظور کی.
(2015 MLD 454).
لاھور ہائی کورٹ نے طاہر اسلام بنام سرکار، ڈکیتی کیس میں حکم دیا کہ "مدعی اگر ایک ملزم کے حق میں بیان حلفی دے کر اس کی ضمانت کروا دے، تو دیگر ملزمان بھی Rule of Consistency کی بناء پر ضمانت کے حقدار ہوں گے.
(2009 PCrLJ 677).
لاھور ہائی کورٹ نے امیر عالم بنام سرکار، نے منشیات کیس میں حکم دیا کہ" SAME رول والے ملزم کی بریت کی صورت میں اس شہادت کی بناء پر دوسرے ملزم کو سزا نہ دی سکتی ہے."
(2018 YLR 1137).