Qanoon Nama

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

02/01/2026

CITATIONS ON FAMILY LAWS

2016 SCMR 2170 SUPREME-COURT
Marriage—dower, increase in—Scope—dower could be fixed before marriage and at the time of marriage or thereafter—Furthermore, dower once settled could always be increased subsequently by the husband or by an agreement between the parties—Property mentioned in nikahnama as dower could not be subjected to attachment or sale in ex*****on.
2017 SCMR 608 SUPREME-COURT
S. 53-A—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 50(1)—Immoveable property—Rival claimants—‘Unregistered sale/dower deed’ and ‘registered gift deed’ in respect of same property—Circumstances in which unregistered sale deed could be given preference over registered deed—Although a registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property had sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and strong evidence was required to cast aspersions on its correctness but it could not be given preference over an un-registered deed vide which physical possession of the property had also been given—Section 50(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 also provided that a registered document regarding transfer of certain rights in an immovable property would have effect against every un-registered document relating to the same property and conferring the same rights in the property as shown in the registered document but the law had also provided certain exceptions—Where a person in favour of whom an un-registered deed qua transfer of certain rights in property had been executed, also had possession of the property, he could legally protect his rights in the property and even a registered deed subsequent in time would not affect his/her rights—First proviso to S. 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 provided that such rights in the property could be protected under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Claimant/wife in whose favour property was transferred vide unregistered sale in lieu of dower was also given possession of the same—Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed the signatures of her husband/transferor on the said deed—Irrespective of the fact that the rival claimants/petitioners had a registered gift deed in their favour, the same was subsequent in time to the unregistered deed and petitioners had no possession of the property, thus, they could not get any advantage of the same—Besides, the petitioners had claimed the gift in their favour vide the registered deed but the basic ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession had not been proved by them—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 SCMR 2170 SUPREME-COURT
Marriage—dower , increase in—Scope—dower could be fixed before marriage and at the time of marriage or thereafter—Furthermore, dower once settled could always be increased subsequently by the husband or by an agreement between the parties—Property mentioned in nikahnama as dower could not be subjected to attachment or sale in ex*****on.
2016 SCMR 2170 SUPREME-COURT
O. ###VII—Summary suit—Execution proceedings—Attachment of immovable property—Immoveable property of judgment-debtor attached in ex*****on of the decree in favour of plaintiff—Objection by wife of judgment-debtor that such immovable property formed part of her dower mentioned in the Nikahnama and hence could not be attached in ex*****on proceedings—Validity—Immoveable property subjected to the ex*****on proceedings was mentioned in the Nikahnama of judgment-debtor as dower —Decree could not be executed against such immovable property—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 PLD 613 SUPREME-COURT
S. 5, Sched.—Family Court, jurisdiction of—Undertaking given in the “Nikah Nama” that certain property/land shall be transferred in the name of the wife and she would be exclusive owner of the same—Such an undertaking could be construed as a part of dower or a gift to wife in consideration of marriage therefore, it would fall within the exclusive domain of the Family Court to pass a decree in relation to such property/land.
2017 MLD 1101 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 5, Sched—Suit for recovery of dower —Entries made in column No. 16 of Nikahnama—Scope—Contention of wife was that husband promised to mutate agricultural land mentioned in column No. 16 of Nikahnama—Suit was decreed by the Family Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court holding that Family Court had no jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in the present case—Validity—Family Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter arising out of Nikahnama—Family Court rightly assumed the jurisdiction and decided the lis strictly in accordance with law—Appellate Court had committed jurisdictional defect while accepting the appeal—Wife had proved her case through reliable and credible evidence and she was entitled for the decree prayed in the plaint—Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored—Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
2017 MLD 580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
R. 6—Family Courts Act (###V of 1964), S. 5, Sched.—Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles—Territorial jurisdiction—Determination of—Expression ‘ordinarily resides’—Scope—Expression ‘ordinarily resides’ did not necessarily mean that residence should be long in point of time—Residence for a few days was enough—Court had to examine the place where the wife had chosen to stay regardless of whether she was a permanent resident of the place, whether she had property over there or the length of time she had resided there—Both the courts below had rightly decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction in favour of wife—No illegality or mis-reading and non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 MLD 618 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Ss. 5, Sched. & 14---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Execution petition---interim order---Appeal---Maintainability---Family Court ordered to pay amount of decretal amount in installments---Contention of judgment-debtor was that nothing was outstanding against him---Validity---Court below had calculated the amount on the basis of its record---Nothing was on record to rebut the conclusion arrived at by the court below---Impugned order being interim order did not fall within the definition of a "decree" or a "judgment"---Appeal was not competent in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2016 PLD 73 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 17-A---interim maintenance , fixation of---Procedure---Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit---interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant.
Citation Name : 2016 PLD 73 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALI ADNAN DAR
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss. 17-A & 5, Sched---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A--­Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 10-A---Constitutional petition--­Maintainability---maintenance of minor child---interim maintenance , fixation of---Procedure---interim order---Appeal---Family Court fixed interim maintenance of minor at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month--­Validity---Family Court had power to pass interim maintenance order at any stage of the suit---interim maintenance should be fixed after filing of written statement of the defendant---If defendant had found that same was excessive or if order suffered from any illegality, irregularity or same was arbitrary, fanciful, void ab initio, without jurisdiction or same had attained the status of final order, then the constitutional petition was maintainable---Constitutional petition was not maintainable where factual controversies were involved---Public Authority was required to furnish reasons for every order whether the same was executive or judicial and order for grant of interim maintenance allowance was not an exception----Family Court while keeping in view prima facie status of both the parties fixed tentative interim maintenance allowance of the minor daughter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month---Father was working abroad but he had not mentioned about his actual salary in his written statement---Amount fixed by the Family Court could not be termed excessive or in consistent with ostensible financial status of father in the given circumstances-- Father was under legal as well as moral obligation to maintain and support his minor daughter as per Injunction of Islam---Impugned order could not be assailed in constitutional petition as statute did not provide any appeal against interlocutory order---Impugned order was neither void ab initio nor without jurisdiction and not a final order-- Amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as an interim maintenance was sufficient to meet day to day expenses of minor daughter who was of only one and half year old---Family Court, while passing the interim maintenance was required to give the bear minimum to the minor---No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order---Both the constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2016 CLC 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NADEEM
Side Opponent : ANEESA BIBI
Ss. 14 & 17-A----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for maintenance ---Appeal---Appellate court upheld decree of maintenance of rupees thirty-five hundred per month on ground that no appeal was maintainable against maintenance for less than rupees five thousand---Validity---maintenance as a whole would determine pecuniary jurisdiction of appellate court---Under S.17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, if defendant had failed to pay interim maintenance fixed by trial court, then not only right of defence could be struck off but decree could also be passed---Appellate court had incorrectly found that order of maintenance passed by Family Court was interim order under S.14(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore no appeal could be preferred against the same---High Court, setting aside impugned judgment and decree, directed appellate court to decided appeal on merits---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2016 CLCN 26 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
S. 5, Sched---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Scope---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles---Application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts of dowry articles---Wife produced purchase receipts of dowry articles during her evidence---Husband/petitioner moved an application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts produced in evidence---Family Court observed that objections, relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipts of dowry articles would be decided at appropriate stage and defendant had not mentioned name, address and sufficient particulars of any witness to whom he wanted to summon through process of court; however, defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any evidence/witness during his own evidence subject to all just and legal exceptions---Validity---Right of defendant-husband to produce evidence had not been closed by the Trial Court---Defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any witness at his turn while recording evidence---interim order passed by the Family Court should not be brought to superior courts to obtain fragmentary decisions which would harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law---Husband had not been prejudiced by the impugned order---Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in routine but only to foster the ends of justice---Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine
Citation Name : 2016 MLD 742 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---maintenance of minor---Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance ---Power of Family Court to decree suit---Averments of plaint not denied in written statement---Presumption---Conduct of father as to payment of maintenance ---Relevance---Plaintiff/wife after dissolution of marriage, along with minor son, filed suit for recovery of maintenance , recovery of dower amount and dowry articles---Family Court passing order under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 fixed interim maintenance of minor---Defendant filed application and later Constitutional petition for modification of said interim order, which were dismissed---Family Court decreed the suit for non-compliance of said interim order of maintenance ---Defendant took plea that trial court had not considered his financial position while fixing maintenance ---Validity---Family Court under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court might struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree---Under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance was contingent right subject to fulfilment of contingency of S. 17-A---If defendant desired to contest suit, he was required to comply with interim order passed by Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964---Plaintiff had specifically stated in plaint all expenses being incurred by her family on minor and quantum of income being earned by defendant---Claim or allegation of fact in plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications in written statement, would be taken to have been admitted by defendant---As averments made in plaint as to income of defendant had not been denied by him either specifically or by necessary implication, the same were, deemed to have been admitted---Conduct of defendant (husband) regarding non-payment of interim maintenance was also relevant which showed that he had come to court with unclean hands, as he had not complied with interim order of maintenance ----Constitutional jurisdiction of discretionary character could not be invoked as a matter of routine or be used as alternate of appeal or revision---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2016 MLD 742 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : TALHA ASIF TAUFIQ
Side Opponent : VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 17-A----Scope---Non-compliance of interim order of maintenance ---Power of Family Court---Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 is empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court may struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree---Under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance is contingent right subject to fulfillment of contingency of S. 17-A.
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 1433 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAZIM
Side Opponent : MUNEER AKHTAR
S. 5, Sched.---Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 42 & 44---Writ petition---maintenance allowance to wife---Scope---Capacity of husband to pay maintenance as fixed---Non-framing of issue---Effect---Contention of husband was that wife had voluntarily left his house and she was not entitled for maintenance allowance---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Wife was entitled for maintenance if she had obeyed the husband and was ready to live in his house but if she had left the house of husband voluntarily then wife was not entitled for maintenance ---Duty of husband to maintain his wife was conditional upon performance of marital obligations---Wife was bound to guard the reputation, property of her husband in his absence and also her own virtue---maintenance allowance should be according to the financial position of husband---Family Court was bound to resolve the question of capacity of husband to pay maintenance ---No issue, in the present case, was framed with regard to capacity of husband whether he had a source to pay the maintenance fixed by the Family Court---Non-framing of issues was not vital for a case if parties were vigilant on the point, if however the parties had led the evidence on the said issue then question could be resolved without framing the issue---Both the parties had led the evidence but Family Court had failed to resolve the question with regard to capacity of husband to pay maintenance ---Family Court was bound to record findings with regard to capacity of husband whether he was in a position to pay maintenance charges claimed by the wife or not---Supreme Court had powers to decide any issue if there was evidence of the parties on record---Remand of case would further prolong the litigation and there would be undue burden on the parties---Both the courts below had not considered that husband had meager source to maintain his wife---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out---Attitude of husband towards the wife was cruel and he had ousted her from house after beating---Wife and minor children were entitled to maintenance ---Husband or father could not be burdened for payment of maintenance beyond his capacity---Husband in the present case, was a Rickshaw driver and due to rising costs of living maintaining a wife and two minors in a meager amount of Rs. 5,000 per month was difficult but wife herself had demanded Rs.5000---Family Court had correctly concluded that wife/children were entitled for maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month and defendant was in a capacity to pay the said amount---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 170 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : Mst. AMREEN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KABIR
S. 5, Sched.---Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44(2)---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Past Main-tenance---Entitlement---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out with regard to fact of cruelty and ousting the wife from the house by the husband---Findings of Family Court and Shariat Court that wife had failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty and ousted from the house were based on evidence---Family Court was bound to award past maintenance to the minor when she was living with her mother since birth but no reason had been given for not awarding the same---Minor was entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of her birth---Husband was working abroad and he was maintaining his second wife who was a resourceful person---Court had power to grant maintenance keeping in view the financial position of father and his economic resources---maintenance allowance awarded to the minor was meagre keeping in view the rising cost of living and same was enhanced from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs. 4,000 per month as prayed for since from the date of birth of minor---Appeal was accepted partly to the extent of minor and was dismissed to the extent of wife.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MAJEED
Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss.14 & 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Maintainability--- interim maintenance allowance---Interlocutory order---Such order did not have the effect of a final order, which had to be passed ultimately by the Family Court after recording evidence and assessing the paying capacity of the father/husband---Unless an order bears characteristics and effect of a final order, it could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution.
2014 CLC 860 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 17-A & 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Interim maintenance was fixed by the family court but same was not paid by the husband and his defence was struck off---Contention of husband was that wife had refused to perform matrimonial obligations and she was not entitled for any maintenance allowance---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Constitutional petition was not maintainable as Judge family court was not arrayed as one of the respondents---Husband did not challenge the validity of order by virtue of which interim maintenance was fixed---Husband was estopped to question the correctness of such order through present constitutional petition---Impugned order could not be declared to have been passed without jurisdiction and lawful authority---family court had rightly insisted upon implementation of order for payment of interim maintenance---Section 17A of West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 empowered the family court to strike off defence of husband who had failed to pay interim maintenance and decree the suit without recording evidence---Suit was rightly decreed by the court s below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 965 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 17A ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition against interim order---Maintainability---Conditions---Interim maintenance, order for---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Husband assailed order of family court whereby he was ordered to pay interim maintenance during pendency of proceedings; on the ground that the quantum of maintenance was exorbitant---Validity---Husband had contended that he had recently been sacked from his job---Disputed questions of fact s regarding job, source of income and salary of the husband had been raised which could not be resolved in the Constitutional Jurisdiction of High court and it was not possible to determine the veracity of claims of husband without recording evidence---Such exercise could not be undertaken in the Constitutional Jurisdiction of High court especially when the finding was only tentative in nature and not final and impugned order was interim in nature---Under Art. 199 of the Constitution, petition against interim order was maintainable if the same was void ab inito, without jurisdiction or had attained status of a final order---family court had jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance allowance, therefore, the impugned order did not fall within such categories---Legislature had under S. 14(3) of the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 had specifically prohibited filing of appeal against interim order and if Constitutional Petition was allowed to be filed against such order, same would tantamount to defeating and diverting intent of the legislature---Petitioner had an alternate remedy available to him by challenging impugned order in appeal which he may file against ultimate order /judgment if passed against husband---Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 965 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 17A ---Interim maintenance of minor---Object and purpose---Purpose behind S.17A of the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 was to ensure that during pendency of proceedings before the family court ; financial constraints faced by minors were ameliorated.
2013 PLD 64 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 17A & 12A, proviso---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Interpretation of Ss.17A and 12A, proviso, West Pakistan family court s act , 1964---Interim order fixing maintenance allowance---Time period for which such interim order would remain valid---Scope---Joint reading of Ss.17A and 12A of West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 revealed that when family court was made competent to pass an interim order for payment of maintenance allowance, it was also made incumbent upon the family court to dispose of the case pending before it within a period of six months from the date of institution---Order passed under S.17A of the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 would be, at most, effective for a period of six months, which time had been allocated by virtue of S.12A for final disposal of a lis pending before family court ---When the maximum age of an interim order passed under S.17A of the West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 expired, continuation of proceedings before family court , would violate provisions of S.12A of the said act ---Age of an order passed under S.17A of West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 for interim maintenance would at maximum be six months and if proceedings were not concluded within such time in the main suit wherein interim order was passed, the family court should not insist upon the implementation of the order of interim maintenance---High court observed that family court had to report to the High court for non-implementation of S.12A of West Pakistan family court s act , 1964 or in case of failure of family court to do so, either party would have a right to bring to notice of High court such illegality being continued in the family court and High court shall then, either under proviso to S.12A of the said act or under Art.199 of the Constitution, pass appropriate order and reconsider quantum of maintenance---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2015 YLR 2650 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : Hafiz SALEEM AKBAR

Side Opponent : UZMA KANWAL

S. 25---Custody of minor---Maintenance of minor by father---Scope---Mother and father had contracted second marriage s---Effect---Desire of minor---Significance---Contention of father was that mother of minor had contracted second marriage and she was not entitled for custody---Application for custody of minor (son) by the father was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Prime consideration while deciding the matter of custody of minor was welfare of minor---Age of minor, in the present case, was 10 years and he was matured to express his independent opinion---Minor had stated before the court that he wanted to live with his mother---Mere contracting second marriage did not disentitle the parties to get the custody of minor---No order could be passed against the interest of welfare of minor---Court being custodian of minor had to consider welfare of minor---Welfare of minor being with the mother, father was legally and morally bound to maintain the minor even if he (minor) resided with his mother---Nothing was on record that minor was not willing to live with his mother---Mother could not be deprived of the custody of minor on the pretext of having limited resources---Father could not be deprived to meet his son on the ground that he had contracted second marriage ---Minor could not be compelled to live with his father---Father was ready to get admitted the minor in a well reputed school by bearing all the expenditures---Family Court was directed by the Supreme Court to arrange the meeting of minor with his father once in a month on the date mutually agreed by the parties---Father would be at liberty to move an application for such purpose before the Family Court who should entertain the same and make proper arrangements after mutual consent of both the parties---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 YLR 15 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Syed MUHAMMAD ALI RAZA

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, through DCO Lahore

Ss. 7 & 8---West Pakistan Rules made under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Divorce---Shia law---Issuance of certificate for effectiveness of divorce---Scope---Shia personal law of divorce was not so strict so as to make a woman slave of the man who would always remain unable to get divorce without his permission---Wife who had been delegated the right of divorce by the husband could pronounce divorce by sending a notice in writing to the Chairman Union Council---Such notice had to be sent to the Union Council of the union where wife to whom Talaq had been pronounced was residing at the time of the pronouncement of Talaq---Notice had to be sent to the Union Council where Nikah was registered in case of divorce by the wife with delegated powers by the husband---No illegality had been committed while issuing certificate of effectiveness of divorce---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 MLD 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Syed ASAD RAZA NAQVI

Side Opponent : Mst. SAIMA FATIMA

S.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Divorce, pronouncement---Fiqah Jafria---Parties were husband and wife inter se and dispute between them was regarding pronouncing of divorce---Grievance of husband was that divorce was not properly pronounced and executed hence was invalid---Validity---In divorce deed there was no mention that husband or authorized person recited Seegha or pronounced Talaq, orally in a set form of Arabic words to wife by her name---It was mentioned in certificate of Talaqnama that it was decided to issue Seegha of Talaq on behalf of husband but it was not mentioned therein that such decision was acted upon and followed by pronouncement of oral Talaq or recitation of Seegha/Khutba Talaq---Such certificate of Talaqnama did not say about pronouncement of Talaq in prescribed form in presence of witnesses, though names of two witnesses were mentioned therein with their signatures like attesting witnesses of Talaqnama but for its pronouncement, their evidence was not recorded in court---Though Talaqnama was followed by divorce deed but it also did not fulfil requirements of earlier document---Divorce pronounced by husband to wife was not valid Talaq or valid repudiation in accordance with requirement of Fiqah Jafria and, therefore, the same was not effective under Shia doctrine of Talaq---As valid Talaq was precondition for exercise of jurisdiction under S.7(1) of Mulsim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, or initiating proceedings under it and as Talaq in question was invalid, therefore, wife was not liable to act upon such invalid Talaq and as such any proceedings, if initiated, on the basis of invalid Talaq would be illegal and without lawful authority and of no binding effect---Husband was at liberty to pronounce fresh Talaq to his wife keeping in view the requirements prescribed under Shia law and thereafter, wife would act in accordance with without any delay---Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2014 MLD 351 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : FARID KHAN
Side Opponent : SAEEDA BIBI

Ss. 17A & 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---maintenance of children by father---Scope---Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance---Application for fixation of interim maintenance for minor---Contention of father was that mother had waived right of maintenance of minor---Application for fixation of interim maintenance for minor was accepted by the Family Court---Validity---Father was responsible to meet expenses of his minor children whether they were in the custody of their mother or in his own custody; he was even bound to maintain divorced daughter if she was living with her mother instead of himself---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the interlocutory order had been pointed out by the defendant---Constitutional petition did not lie against an interlocutory order and same was dismissed.

Paklawyer Associates

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GAKHAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : Mst. SURAYYA BEGUM

S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for maintenance of daughter including educational expenses---Claim of past maintenance ---maintenance ---Definition---Suit was decreed and father (petitioner) was ordered to pay past maintenance including for education of daughter ---Contention of the father (petitioner) was inter alia, that his daughter was disobedient and was therefore, not entitled to recover maintenance and that maintenance did not include education expenses---Validity---Father was bound to maintain his daughter until she was married, and the father was not bound to maintain a child which was capable of being maintained out of his or her own property---Definition of "maintenance " was to be liberally interpreted which included the process of maintenance or being maintained and provisions of means to support life---Father was bound to maintain a daughter and she was entitled to receive maintenance regardless of her age till such time she was married---Even on attaining the age of majority, the father was responsible for daughter 's maintenance ---Father in the present case had been providing maintenance to his other children from his other wives and as such he treated his daughter with discrimination---Contention that the daughter was disobedient had no force, since, firstly, the father was unable to show his love or affection for his daughter , therefore he could not expect her to return, secondly no instance was mentioned showing disobedience, and thirdly, under Islamic law, there was no institution of abandonment ("aaq") for a disgruntled son/daughter depriving him/her from inheritance and therefore a daughter could not be deprived of her right to be maintained by her father during his life time---No interference was called for in the impugned orders---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances

Supreme Law Concern

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NASIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : Dr. FAIZA BASHIR

S. 5, Sched. Entry No.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor daughter ---Decree of Family Court awarding maintenance to minor with 10% annual increase therein upheld by Appellate Court---Father's plea was that in absence of any provision in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court on its own could not grant such increase in maintenance to minor---Validity---Nothing was available in S.5 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 or its Sched. to prohibit Family Court from granting maintenance to needy minor with annual increase therein---Basic requirements of life of a minor would grow with his growing age---Family Court would always be deemed to exercise its parental jurisdiction and supposed to look into future needs of minor while granting maintenance in its age of infancy---maintenance would never be considered as charity---Forcing minor to stand in attendance before father or appear before Family Court every year with folded hands for annual increase in maintenance would be violative to his/her dignity---Legislature had not provided any fixed rate of maintenance , thus, Family Court could fix its rate while keeping in view financial and social status of parties and requirements of minor and evidence of parties in support thereof ---Family Court could grant annual increase in maintenance of minor---High Court by virtue of S.5(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had power to add annual increase in already existing Entry at Sr. No.3 of Sched., thereof ---High Court dismissed constitutional petition filed by father and directed the Registrar of the Court to place present judgment before Chief Justice for adding suitable entry against Column No.3 of Sched. to the Act by exercising powers provided in S.5(3) thereof ---Principles.

Citation Name : 2012 YLR 1559 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YASEEN
Side Opponent : Mst. KALI BIBI

S. 5, Sched. & S.14---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Plaintiff (wife) had amply proved the factum of cruelty, non-payment of maintenance allowance and non-performance of marital obligations by the defendant (husband)---Record showed that defendant was living abroad for the last many years; he had contracted a second marriage there, and had a daughter from that wedlock---Defendant had not paid any maintenance allowance to the plaintiff from the day of separation and did not perform his marital obligations for more than a period of three years---Defendant had failed to produce sufficient and reliable evidence in rebuttal of the allegations made by plaintiff---No misreading and non-reading of evidence was noticed in the case; and judgment of the court below to the extent of dissolution of marriage had been recorded in a legal manner, which was maintained by Shariat Court in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 601 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MIANWALI

S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Custody of minor---Contest between father and mother of minor---Father (petitioner) impugned order of Family Court whereby his petition under S.25 of the Guardian and wards act , 1890 for custody of minor was dismissed---Validity---Father had entered into a second marriage while the mother had not entered into a second marriage but devoted her remaining life to her son---After taking of the custody of minor from the real mother, the same could not be hand ed over to a step-mother---Minor, in the present case, had been with the mother from his birth and at the age of eleven years, a change of custody would damage the minor psychologically, which could not be considered to be in his welfare, as "lap of mother is the lap of God"---Contention that father was entitled to custody of minor on the ground that he was providing maintenance for the minor was no ground for claiming custody of minor as it was the absolute duty of a father to maintain his child, wherever the child lived---Poverty of a mother would not deprive her from the custody of her real child---Findings of courts below were correct---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. SADIA BIBI

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

S. 5 & Sched.---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.6(5)---Suit for recovery of dower---Deferred dower---Second marriage by husband---Effect---Husband who contracts second marriage without seeking permission from his first wife was bound to immediately pay the entire amount of dower to his first wife irrespective of the fact whether the same was prompt or deferred---Perusal of Nikkahanama of husband with second wife, in the present case, showed that he admitted factum of his earlier marriage to the plaintiff wife and took the stance that he had divorced her---Even if said stance was true, even then husband was bound to pay the amount of dower to the wife if the same was deferred.

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 601 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MIANWALI

S. 5, Sched---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction of Family Court----"Personal belongings or property of wife"---Scope---Suit for recovery of dower was partly decreed---Wife (petitioner) had claimed an amount on basis of an alleged "iqrarnama" executed by husband in favour of wife for an amount to be payable to her by the husband in case of certain commissions or omissions by husband---Said claim of wife was denied by Appellate Court---Contention of wife was that said document (iqrarnama) was not objected to by the husband and as such her claim had been proved---Wife further contended that Family Court could adjudicate on her claim since the same fell within the scope of "personal belongings or property of wife" was given in the Schedule to section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Validity---Document which was exhibited in evidence, must not be a proved document and question of jurisdiction as to the admissibility of claim and nature of document was also to be seen by the court---Commitment or undertakings in the said document/iqrarnama could not attain the status of personal belongings or property of a wife and thus adjudication on basis of such document would fall outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Family Court---Claim of wife to such extent was rightly denied by Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAKIL MEHMOOD

Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT

S.5 &Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Recovery of dower, dowry articles, maintenance allowance and delivery expenses---Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court by which decree for maintenance for son, recovery of dower amount and dowry articles was passed in favour of the wife (respondent)---Husband (petitioner) in his petition did not challenge the quantam of maintenance allowance as fixed by courts below but objected to the 20% annual increase in the said allowance---Husband also contented that dowry list was not signed by him or his representative and list of dowry articles exhibited in the court did not mention their prices---Validity---Petitioner had failed to produce his salary slips to establish his contention that 20% annual increase in maintenance allowance was beyond his means---Minor son was a 'special child' because of which wife had to incur a lot of expense on his medical treatment---Such fact was also admitted by one of petitioner's witnesses, in view of which 20% annual increase in maintenance allowance was rightly fixed by courts below---Wife had proved the list of dowry articles, as the same was signed by her and she had also produced different receipts regarding the purchase of said dowry articles---Husband having failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court below, his petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 11 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Mst. MIRRAT MANZOOR BAJWA

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD

S. 5 Sched. & S.17---Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (XLIII of 1976), Ss. 2(b) & 10---Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, R.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Rule of thumb---Applicability---List of dowry articles produced in evidence by both parties in support of their respective claim---Decree passed by Family Court on basis of such list produced by husband upheld by Appellate Court---Wife's plea that rule of thumb would apply to proceedings before Family Court and not provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or its principles, thus, receipts in respect of purchase of dowry articles produced by her were liable to be relied upon by courts below---Validity---Wife in her statement had admitted that such list was not prepared at time of her Nikah, while her father had deposed otherwise---Rule of thumb would not absolve a party from establishing his/her claim---Party denying liability, on basis of such rule, could not be burdened to shoulder claim of opposite party without its proof---Dowry list produced by wife was not prepared in shape of Form D-1 as prescribed in R.4(1) of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, therefore same was not to be considered in support of her claim---Receipts in respect of purchase of household articles on basis of rule of thumb, would not qualify and meet essential requirement of proof of purchase of said articles by parents of wife and its giving to her before or after marriage---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 88 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Major QAMAR ZAMAN QADIR

Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT, JEHLUM

S. 5 & Scehd.---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'---Scope---Khula' obtained from wife under coercion---Effect---Suit for dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula' was decreed when husband in his statement stated that he would have no objection to such decree---Special attorney appeared on behalf of wife and she did not tender appearance in person and no pre-trial reconciliation took place--Wife made statement before High Court that Khula' was not sought by her on her own freewill and was procured by appointment of special attorney by her father under coercion---Contention of the husband (petitioner) was that said decree was illegal and of no binding effect---Validity---Pivotal question to be determined was as to what was the effect of decree of dissolution of marriage and whether parties could rejoin as husband and wife after pronouncement of Khula' by court---Khula' was repudiation with consent at instance of wife in which she agreed to give consideration to husband for release from marital bond and it had the effect of "talaq bayen" (single divorce)---Pronouncement of Khula' by court would amount to single divorce and husband would be at liberty to marry the wife again after solemnization of nikah without intervention of a third person---Section 7(6) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 did not debar wife whose marriage had been terminated by divorce under S.7 of the said Ordinance from remarrying the same husband without intervening marriage with a third person---High Court set aside orders of courts below---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 276 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. MUSSARAT IQBAL NIAZI

Side Opponent : JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Ss. 10(4), 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Khula---Suit for dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula was decreed and wife was directed to return gold and land received from husband in lieu of decree of Khula---Contention of wife inter alia was that a specific amount of money was mentioned in column 13 of the Nikahnama which was to be the consideration for the Khula and that the gold was a bridal gift whereas the land was not Haq Mehr but a validly made gift in the wife's favour---Validity---Under Islamic Law marriage between a Muslim man and woman could be dissolved on basis of Khula for which some consideration is given in the form of dower which the wife was entitled to receive at the time of demand---Wife was also entitled to receive bridal gifts at the time of marriage which was solely the wife's property---Once gift of land was made, the title/ownership of the same departed from the original doner and vested to the donee which, without consent of the latter, could not be returned---Amount of money was mentioned in column 13 of the Nikahnama in the present case, and consideration for Khula was to be the said amount which was specifically mentioned in the Nikahnama---Gold and land were bridal gifts which were to remain in the ownership of the wife---High Court set aside findings of the courts below and directed that wife be allowed to retain the gold and land---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : NASIR AHMAD

Side Opponent : Dr. FAIZA BASHIR

S. 5, Sched. Entry No.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor daughter---Decree of Family Court awarding maintenance to minor with 10% annual increase therein upheld by Appellate Court---Father's plea was that in absence of any provision in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court on its own could not grant such increase in maintenance to minor---Validity---Nothing was available in S.5 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 or its Sched. to prohibit Family Court from granting maintenance to needy minor with annual increase therein---Basic requirements of life of a minor would grow with his growing age---Family Court would always be deemed to exercise its parental jurisdiction and supposed to look into future needs of minor while granting maintenance in its age of infancy---Maintenance would never be considered as charity---Forcing minor to stand in attendance before father or appear before Family Court every year with folded hands for annual increase in maintenance would be violative to his/her dignity---Legislature had not provided any fixed rate of maintenance, thus, Family Court could fix its rate while keeping in view financial and social status of parties and requirements of minor and evidence of parties in support thereof---Family Court could grant annual increase in maintenance of minor---High Court by virtue of S.5(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had power to add annual increase in already existing Entry at Sr. No.3 of Sched., thereof---High Court dismissed constitutional petition filed by father and directed the Registrar of the Court to place present judgment before Chief Justice for adding suitable entry against Column No.3 of Sched. to the Act by exercising powers provided in S.5(3)