West Pakistan Family Courts Act - Miscelaneous

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 698
LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISLAM

Side Opponent : Mst. RASHDAH SULTANA
S. 5, Sched. & S.17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble---Suit for
recovery of dowry articles ---Non-production of receipts for dowry articles
---Effect---Provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable
in the proceedings before the Family Court in view of S.17 of the West
Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Intent of the legislature was clearly to
simplify the procedure and the law-makers were aware of the fact that in
cases relating to dower, the lists were seldom prepared and receipts were
very rarely kept intact as everyone made arrangements for marriage of
one's daughter with the hope and prayer that she would lead a happily
married life.
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Side Opponent : Mst. ZAHIDAN
S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles ---Proof in form of list of
dowry articles bearing signatures of husband side---Scope---Not possible
for a wife to produce such kind of documentary evidence---Reasons stated.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 800

Side Opponent : Mst. ZAHIDA
S. 5, Sched.---Claim of dowry articles ---Proof---Keeping record of
purchase receipts and list of dowry articles and obtaining signature from
the bridegroom side---Propriety---Not possible for any bride/wife in
Pakistan to keep the record of purchase receipts, prepare the list of dowry
articles , and obtain signatures from bridegroom/husband side.
Citation Name : 2012 YLR 2693
Side Appellant : HAMID ALI

Side Opponent : Mst. NABILA RIAZ
S.5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan Art.199---Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles ---Petitioner
(husband) assailed order of Appellate Court whereby suit of respondent for
recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles was decreed--Contention of petitioner was that neither the list of dowry articles was
prepared at the time of marriage nor receipts of said articles had been
produced by the respondent (wife) before the Trial Court---Validity---Nonpreparation of list of dowry articles and non-production of receipts of said
dowry articles were not fatal to the case of the respondent---Record
revealed that ordinary items were mentioned in the said list---Said list was
prepared by the respondent who had appeared in the Trial Court as a

witness, and her evidence had been corroborated by other witnesses who
were cross-examined at length and nothing favourable to the petitioner
had been brought on the record---Contradictions in such evidence pointed
out by the petitioner were insignificant---Minor variations in the statement
of witnesses did occur when their statements were recorded after a
considerable period of time---Respondent could not be non-suited on
ground of such minor contradictions in the statement of her witnesses
when such statements were recorded after about five years from when the
marriage between the parties was solemnized---No illegality, material
irregularity or infirmity having been pointed out in the order of the
Appellate Court warranting interference by the High Court in its
constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional Petition was dismissed, in
circumstances.
SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFEEZ

Side Opponent : SHAMAILA BIBI
Ss. 5, Sched. & 14---Suit for recovery of dowry ---Plaintiff (wife) along with
plaint had produced a list of articles given at the time of marriage to her--Nikahnama also showed that at the time of marriage, a list was produced
for the dowry items and an amount of Rs.70,300 was mentioned therein--Plaintiff had proved that the dowry items were still lying with the
defendant which fact was proved by plaintiff herself in her own statement
as well as the statements of the witnesses---Trial Court as well as
Shariat/Appellate Court while passing the decree for recovery of dowry
items had appreciated and concluded the matter in its true perspective--Defendant having failed to substantiate his case to interfere with the
findings recorded by Shariat Court, same was upheld in its tune and
spirit.
Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1049
SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. AYESHA SHAHEEN

Side Opponent : KHALID MEHMOOD
S. 5, Sched.---Recovery of dowry articles , decree for---Gold ornaments,
market value of---Compensating wife/decree-holder with market value of
gold instead of gold ornaments---Scope---Wife filed suit for recovery of
dowry articles against her husband, and the list of dowry articles included
17 tolas of gold---Suit prayed for either recovery of 17 tolas of gold or its
value, which was stated to be Rs.380,000---Trial Court granted decree only
for recovery of dowry articles but not its market value, therefore wife was
held entitled to recovery of 17 tolas of gold---Such part of decree could be
satisfied either upon handing over by the husband to his wife gold
ornaments weighing 17 tolas, and in case he was not in a position to

provide the same, the wife could be appropriately and fully compensated in
terms of money only if she was paid an amount that would enable her to
purchase the same from the open market---Unlike other property,
moveable or immoveable, determination of market value of gold did not
pose any difficulty as the same was fixed by gold market on daily basis and
was readily exchangeable for cash---Wife was entitled to recovery of 17
tolas of gold ornaments or in the alternative its current market value--Appeal was allowed accordingly.
SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. AYESHA SHAHEEN

Side Opponent : KHALID MEHMOOD
S. 5, Sched.---Recovery of dowry articles , decree for---Gold ornaments--Market value, determination of---Scope---Where decree for delivery of gold
or its market value was granted the value should be determined with
reference to the date of payment, as only then the decree could become
fully satisfied.
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.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN AHMED

Side Opponent : Mst. HINA FAHEEM
S. 3----dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Rules, 1976, R. 3---West
Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) S. 5---Restriction on dowry ,
presents and bridal gifts---Scope and effect---Suit for recovery of dower--Contention of the husband was that restriction imposed by section 3 of the
dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 had not been complied with,
therefore the wife was not entitled for the recovery of dowry articles
---Validity---Under S. 3 of the dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act,
1976; a restriction had been imposed that bridal gifts should not exceed
Rupees Five Thousand (5000) but said restriction was only restrictive and
not prohibitive and the said bar was only meant to control the restriction
but did not impose a complete ban as non-compliance of this provision was
only a technical lapse which would not disentitle a genuine claim if a
claimant was able to prove that dowry articles exceeding Rupees Five
Thousand had been usurped and were in illegal possession of a person--Contention that since the parameters of S. 3 of the and Rule 4 of the Rules
had not been fulfilled, hence the wife was not entitled to return of dowry ,
was rejected by High Court.
Citation Name : 2013 PLD 194
Side Appellant : Mst. MARIUM HAYAT

Side Opponent : AHMED SAROOSH
S. 5, Sched.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.193, 468 & 220---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.195, 476 & 476-A---Constitution of
Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Perjury---Cognizance, taking
of---During proceedings in suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by wife,
husband relied upon certain receipts of gold ornaments which the jeweller
denied to have issued---Wife filed application for initiation of proceedings
against husband for giving false evidence before Family Court---Family
Court as well as Lower Appellant Court declined to initiate proceedings of
perjury against husband---Validity---Family Court was categorized as Civil
Court, empowered to record evidence, thus Family Court being Civil Court
could take cognizance under Ss.195 and 476, Cr.P.C. which provisions
were a check on litigant and parties---Such provisions armed the courts
with authority to commit any person who had misled court by producing
perjured evidence---Courts exercising civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction
were competent to try offence punishable under numerous provisions of
Penal Code, 1860, enumerated therein including S.193, P.P.C.
(punishment for giving false evidence), when such offence was alleged to
have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court
which was competent to take cognizance---When any person dared to give
false evidence in any court competent to record evidence, would expose
himself to be committed for perjury---High Court set aside orders passed
by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court and application under
Ss.193/468/220, P.P.C. filed by wife was granted---High Court directed the
Family Court to take cognizance of the offence, try the same itself an/or
forward the same to the court having jurisdiction in terms of S.476-A,
Cr.P.C.---Petition was allowed accordingly.
Side Appellant : SAEED ALAM

Side Opponent : FAMILY JUDGE, ROHRI
Ss. 10 (4) & 5, Sched.---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961),
Form II, Column 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula and
recovery of dowry articles ---Restoration of dower amount to the husband
by the wife---Scope---Contention of wife was that dower amount was not
paid to her; however; husband contended that he had paid the same to her
after marriage according to a 'faisla'---Validity---Parties had adopted
divergent stances with regard to payment of dower amount---Family Court
could not adjudicate such controversy without recording evidence and
providing opportunity to the parties to substantiate their claims--Husband had not mentioned in his written statement as to when, where
and amongst whom the alleged "faisla" was made or whether the same was
brought in black and white or not---Dower amount was not paid by the
husband to the wife at the time of marriage---Right to exercise khula by
the wife was dependent upon restoration of dower amount to the husband
but same was qualified with the word 'at the time of marriage'---Matter of
defendant did not fall within the ambit of purview of proviso to S. 10(4) of
West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Restoration of dower amount to
the husband received by the wife in consideration of marriage at the time
of marriage must be in consonance with the amount referred to in column
15 of the nikahnama---Dower amount paid at any other time except at the
time of marriage could not be restored at the time of dissolution of
marriage when reconciliation failed---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : ROBIN DAVID JOHN

Side Opponent : Mst. HUMA SAMUEL
S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional
petition---Suit for recovery of dowry articles ---Plaintiff-wife and her
witnesses were consistent on the point that she was given dowry articles
as claimed by her in the plaint---Nothing could be brought out from the
said witnesses despite lengthy cross-examination which could support the
version of defendant-husband or even weaken the stance of plaintiff-wife--Parents of plaintiff-wife were having reasonable financial status enough to
give dowry articles to their daughter---Mere non-production of purchase
receipts or non-signing of list of dowry articles by the plaintiff-wife was not
sufficient to disentitle her from recovery of her dowry articles.
2015 MLD 11
Side Appellant : KHALID BASHIR

Side Opponent : Mst. SHAMAS-UN-NISA
Petitioner/husband in his written statement had not categorically denied

factum of delivery of dowry articles and simply stated that no articles were
shifted to his house---Stance of the petitioner was not acceptable as from
the evidence of the parties it was established that after marriage the wife
resided in his house---dowry articles given to her by her parents in natural
course would have been shifted to petitioner's house---Ground urged
regarding non-exhibition of list of dowry articles could not be made basis
for non-suiting the wife for recovery of dowry articles particularly when the
factum of delivery of dowry articles was not categorically denied by the
husband.
Side Appellant : AMIR SHAHZAD

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
S. 5, Sched. & S.17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble--Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for
recovery of dowry articles ---Family Court could follow any procedure to
regulate its proceedings unless a clear prohibition was found in the law--Mere fact that party had not formally proved a document was of no legal
consequence---Evidence adduced before the Family Court could not be
evaluated and appraised in a manner as was appreciated in the cases
presented under Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Wife produced list of dowry
articles which had been rightly relied upon by the Family Court while
excluding the gold ornaments---Solitary statement of wife was sufficient to
prove the claim of dowry articles ---Wife was not required to prove the case
in terms of requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 while making the
claim for dowry articles ---West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was a
special law and provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had been
excluded---Appeal filed by the husband before the Appellate Court was
barred by time---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISLAM

Side Opponent : Mst. RASHDAH SULTANA
S. 5, Sched. & S.17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble---Suit for
---Effect---Provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable
in the proceedings before the Family Court in view of S.17 of the West
Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Intent of the legislature was clearly to
simplify the procedure and the law-makers were aware of the fact that in
cases relating to dower, the lists were seldom prepared and receipts were
very rarely kept intact as everyone made arrangements for marriage of
one's daughter with the hope and prayer that she would lead a happily
married life.

Side Opponent : Mst. ZAHIDAN
S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles ---Proof in form of list of
dowry articles bearing signatures of husband side---Scope---Not possible
for a wife to produce such kind of documentary evidence---Reasons stated.

Side Opponent : Mst. ZAHIDA
S. 5, Sched.---Claim of dowry articles ---Proof---Keeping record of
purchase receipts and list of dowry articles and obtaining signature from
the bridegroom side---Propriety---Not possible for any bride/wife in
Pakistan to keep the record of purchase receipts, prepare the list of dowry
articles , and obtain signatures from bridegroom/husband side.
Side Appellant : Mst. RUQAYYA BIBI

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB
S.18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Recovery of dowry articles ---Evidence through attorney---Principle---Wife
objected to recording of evidence of husband through attorney---Validity--If attorney was well conversant with all facts of case, there was no legal bar
in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, whereby any of the parties
could be deprived from appointing an attorney, if the party was not
available due to reason beyond his control---Legislature enacted provisions
of S.18 in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, keeping in view only the
matters relating to dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, restitution
of conjugal rights and custody of children---Provisions of S.18 of West
Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, were meant for such category of cases
where personal appearance of spouses was essential enabling court to
apprise itself of the real controversy/differences between the parties and
for such purpose a mandatory provision of reconciliation was also included
in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Recovery of dowry articles was
a civil liability which was included in Schedule of West Pakistan Family
Courts Act, 1964---Provisions of S.18 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act,
1964, were just enabling provisions and husband could not be deprived to
defend the suit against him through his attorney---High court declined to
interfere in concurrent orders passed by both the courts below, whereby
application filed by wife was dismissed---Petition was dismissed in
circumstances.
Side Appellant : HAMID ALI

Side Opponent : Mst. NABILA RIAZ
S.5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan Art.199---Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles ---Petitioner
(husband) assailed order of Appellate Court whereby suit of respondent for
recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles was decreed--Contention of petitioner was that neither the list of dowry articles was
prepared at the time of marriage nor receipts of said articles had been
produced by the respondent (wife) before the Trial Court---Validity---Nonpreparation of list of dowry articles and non-production of receipts of said
dowry articles were not fatal to the case of the respondent---Record
revealed that ordinary items were mentioned in the said list---Said list was
prepared by the respondent who had appeared in the Trial Court as a
witness, and her evidence had been corroborated by other witnesses who
were cross-examined at length and nothing favourable to the petitioner
had been brought on the record---Contradictions in such evidence pointed
out by the petitioner were insignificant---Minor variations in the statement
of witnesses did occur when their statements were recorded after a
considerable period of time---Respondent could not be non-suited on
ground of such minor contradictions in the statement of her witnesses
when such statements were recorded after about five years from when the
marriage between the parties was solemnized---No illegality, material
irregularity or infirmity having been pointed out in the order of the
Appellate Court warranting interference by the High Court in its
constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional Petition was dismissed, in
circumstances.
Side Appellant : Mst. SAHIB NOOR

Side Opponent : ZAFAR IQBAL
S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--Constitutional petition-Suit by wife for recovery of dowry articles or its value and her maintenance
by the husband---Defendant's contention was that no receipt of purchase
of dowry articles was proved through production of any witness in the
court and both Trial Court and Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the
suit---Validity---List of dowry articles was annexed with the plaint right
from the inception which was not only the basis of the suit but was also
mentioned in the plaint and the same was exhibited by the Family Court
without any objection from the defendant; such being so, no objection
could subsequently be taken in respect of its admissibility---Exact and
strict technical compliance was not required in such like cases---Provisions
of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being not applicable to the proceedings to be
conducted by the Family Court, their rigours and technicalities had to be
evaluated and appreciated as a prudent man would assess and reach a
conclusion.
Side Appellant : Rao ABID ALI

Side Opponent : HINA JABBAR
S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Plaintiff filed suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of
dowry articles or its value to the sum of Rs.396,250 along with gold
ornaments---Defendant contested suit on the ground that he had returned
dowry articles to the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses--Trial Court
decreed suit of the plaintiff for recovery of dowry articles or Rs.200, 000 as
its price in lieu thereof excluding articles which were given as gift---Both
parties filed appeals which were dismissed by appellate court vide
consolidated judgment and decree---Validity---Stand of defendant of return
of dowry articles was outside the scope of his pleadings; so it could not be
legally considered---Defendant had not produced any receipt of return of
dowry articles to the plaintiff---Defendant had failed to point out any
misreading or non-reading of material evidence which might have affected
the concurrent judgments and decrees of both courts below---High Court
declined to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition
was dismissed in limine.
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 5 & Sched.--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional
petition---Suit for maintenance, dowry articles and dower---Trial Court
decreed the suit---Appellate Court dismissed defendant's suit for
restitution of conjugal rights upholding Trial Court's findings as to dower
and dowry articles ---Validity---Dower, though prompt, had not been
paid/given to wife---House admittedly given in dower was still in
possession of husband/petitioner---Having been turned out of the house
forcibly, wife/respondent had no chance to collect her belongings--Impugned judgment and decree did not suffer from any illegality
warranting High Court's interference in constitutional jurisdiction--Petition was dismissed in limine.
Side Appellant : HUSSAIN BAKHSH

Side Opponent : NASIM MAI
S. 5, Sched. & S.14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional
petition---Suit for recovery of dowry articles ---Plaintiff filed suit for return
of dowry articles or in alternative its price Rs.2,43,500---Family Court
decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.50,000 as amount of
dowry articles ---On filing appeal by the plaintiff against judgment of the
Family Court, Appellate Court decreed the suit for return of dowry articles
or in alternate the price of Rs.2,43,500 as was claimed by the plaintiff in
her suit---Marriage of parties was solemnized seven years ago from the
date of institution of the suit and Appellate Court had failed to appreciate
that the dowry articles had lost their value during said seven years--Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and
case was remanded to Appellate Court to consider the effect of
depreciation of value of dowry articles and after hearing the parties decide
the suit on merits.
ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Mst. SHAKEELA BIBI

Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ISRAR
Ss.17, 5 & Sched.---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional Petition---Suit for
---Effect---Solitary statement of wife was sufficient to prove the claim of
dowry articles ---Contention of husband that wife, while making claim for
dowry articles , was required to prove the case in terms of the
requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 was not only
misconceived but was also besides the mandate of law as envisaged in S.
17(1) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Section 17 of the
West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was a special law and provisions of
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were excluded through said section---Was
not possible for any bride / wife in the society to keep the record of
purchase receipts, prepare the list of dowry articles and obtain signatures
from the husband's side---Mothers start collecting, purchasing, and
preserving articles for their daughters from when they start growing up
and there was a tradition that the in-laws of any wife were extended
esteem and respect and it was considered an insult to prepare the dowry
list for the purposes of obtaining signatures from them---Constitutional
petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Side Appellant : Mst. MUSARRAT ANDLEEB

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIPUR, DISTRICT
MUZAFFARGARH
S. 5 & Sched.---dowry articles , recovery of---Proper parties---Scope--Jurisdiction vested in Family Court is determined on the basis of subjectmatter and not on the basis of persons, permitted or entitled to invoke
such jurisdiction---No provision was available in West Pakistan Family
Courts Act, 1964, which classifies or in any way limits category of persons
entitled to be a party to proceedings before Family Court.
Side Appellant : Mst. MUSARRAT ANDLEEB
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIPUR, DISTRICT

MUZAFFARGARH
Ss. 2(d), 5 & Serial 8 of Schedule---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--Constitutional petition---dowry articles , recovery of---Word "party"--Connotation---Plaintiff, after the death of her husband filed suit for
recovery of dowry articles against relatives of her deceased husband---Both
the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by
plaintiff on the ground that such suit was only maintainable between
spouses---Validity---Word "party" had a very wide meaning and was not
necessarily confined to spouses and it included "any person" which in the
"consideration" of Family Court was "necessary" for "proper decision" of the
"dispute" and whom the Family Court might add as a party to dispute--Any suit of a subject-matter covered by the Schedule to West Pakistan
Family Courts Act, 1964, could be instituted before Family Court---Claim
of plaintiff for recovery of dowry was available at Serial number 8 of the
Schedule to West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court had
jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter---High Court, in
exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the judgments and decrees
passed by two courts below and case was remanded to Family Court for
decision afresh---Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Mst. Naureen Vs Ehsan Sabir, Family Judge, Faisalabad and 2 others

(2010 C.L.R. 110)
FAMILY CASE --- (Decision on Oath)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961---Oaths Act, 1873, Ss. 8, 9, 10, 11---Suit for recovery of
dowry articles
---Decisions on Oath---Respondent/defendant made an offer that if
petitioner/plaintiff took oath while putting his hand on head of her
children and also on Holy Quran that articles mentioned in Exhibts (lists)
were given to her, respondent would pay amount of same---Subsequently,
respondent resiled from his offer since special oath offered by him
allegedly was not in accordance with Oaths Act and requested for case to
be decided on merits---Trial Court accepted such request and decided to
adjudicate case on merits after recording evidence of parties---Appeal
taken thereagainst was dismissed as being not competent---Writ petition in
High Court---Validity---Respondent who himself offered to petitioner to
take oath while putting hand on heads of children (respondent was also
the real father of children) and on Holy Quran could not be allowed to
resile or back out from his offer---Breach of undertaking to a Court
amounts to contempt of Court, principle---Writ petition allowed/Case
remanded. Ref: 1998 PSC 53.
[A party cannot resile from decision on oath once it was offered by him].
Gul Hassan Vs Mst. Nasreen Akhtar and 2 others (2013 P.L.R. 371)
FAMILY DISPUTE --- (Conduct of parties)
(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-----Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939---Constitution of Pakistan,
1973, Art. 199---Family dispute and conduct of parties---Features of
case---Petitioner by his conduct obliged respondent to abandon house of
her husband and take abode in house of her parents---Respondent had
brought a suit for recovery of dower, maintenance, gold ornaments and
cash award---Trial Court partially decree her suit---Future maintenance
was also decreed in her favour, but subject to condition that she would go
and live with her husband---Issues and evidence---Analysis---Petitioner
had not contacted his legally wedded wife to please and gratify her but
instead of taking his wife to his home in lieu of payment of dower and
maintenance he selected a way of litigation---Said conduct and attitude of
petitioner and non-payment of dower was a lawful excuse for wife to
deprive him of her companionship---Trial Court after thrashing out entire
evidence had arrived at a conclusion that in fact respondent was having
valid justification for living apart from petitioner till payment of dower and
maintenance etc.---Respondent had not deserted house of petitioner
without any reason but conduct and attitude of petitioner brought her life
miserable---In fact, husband was under social and legal obligation to
maintain his wife but petitioner during entire proceedings had failed to
prove that he was willing to fulfill his obligation---Said conduct was
sufficient to create a reason for dissolution of marriage---Respondent had
succeeding to establish her entitlement to dissolution of marriage on
grounds of cruelty and non-maintenance for sufficient long time, during
subsistence of marriage---Due to conduct and cruel attitude of petitioner,
it would not be possible for respondent to live with him within the limits
prescribed by Almighty Allah and thus she could not be deprived of her
dower debt and other rights---No mis-reading and non-reading of evidence
or any illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in impugned
judgments/decrees---Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
(b) Khula-----Marriage shall be dissolved on the basis of Khula, when the wife is
determined not to live with her husband because of her hatred for him.
(Para 12)
[Conduct of petitioner and non-payment of dower was a lawful excuse for

wife to deprive him of her companionship. High Court dismissed writ
petition]
Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD BASHIR

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI
S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Family dispute---Reference to arbitrator---Suit for recovery of
dowry articles , maintenance and dower amount was filed by wife---Family
Court instead of proceeding with the matter according to procedure
provided under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, referred the matter
to arbitrators, who announced the award---Family Court in the light of
award announced the judgment and the same was maintained by Lower
Appellate Court---Validity---Provision of arbitration was not provided under
West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore, Family Court could not
refer the dispute pending before him to arbitrators---Judgments and
decrees passed by two Courts below were not sustainable in the eye of law
as arbitrators could not be directed to decide matter pending before
competent forum---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set

aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and
case was remanded to Family Court for decision afresh---Petition was
allowed accordingly.
SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FARZANA RASOOL

Side Opponent : Dr. MUHAMMAD BASHIR
S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 199---Suit for
recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles ---Appointment of
Arbitrators at defendant's request for settlement of his family disputes with
wife by giving undertaking to be bound by their decision---Suit decreed by
Family Court on basis of recommendations of Arbitrators upheld by
Appellate Court, but set aside by High Court on the ground that
Arbitration Act, 1940 was not applicable to Family Courts---Validity--Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider plaintiff's contention
that Family Courts were not precluded to refer matters between parties for
mediation, arbitration or decision by a third party, thus, High Court might
have not interfered in proceedings where parties themselves consented for
same.
SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FARZANA RASOOL

Side Opponent : Dr. MUHAMMAD BASHIR
S. 5 & Sched:---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 199---Suit for
recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles ---Appointment of
Arbitrators at request of defendant (husband) for settlement of his family
disputes with plaintiff (wife) by giving undertaking to be bound by their
decision, if any---Suit decreed by Family Court on basis of unanimous
decision/award of Arbitrators upheld by Appellate Court, but set aside by
High Court on ground that Arbitration Act, 1940 was not applicable to
Family Courts---Validity---Defendant had voluntarily made statement on
oath in court seeking resolution of his matrimonial disputes with plaintiff
by nominating a panel of Arbitrators of his choice by giving an undertaking
to be bound by their decision---Family Court after rejecting defendant's
objection had incorporated in its judgment such decision of Arbitrators--Option to enter into a compromise at any stage of proceedings vested with
parties before pronouncement of judgment---Defendant could make
request for compromise at post trial stage and Family Court could not have
refused same---No illegality had been committed in entrusting such
dispute to Arbitrators in whom defendant had reposed full confidence by
making unqualified and unconditional statement and that too on oath--Provisions of Ss. 10 and 12 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964
conferred jurisdiction upon Judge Family Court to make an effort to bring
about compromise between spouses---Defendant's conduct in objecting
such decision of Arbitrators was liable to be condemned---Supreme Court
set aside impugned judgment and restored that of Appellate Court and
Family Court in circumstances.
Side Appellant : Mst. TALAT SHAHEEN

Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD IBRAR
S. 5, Sched. & S.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dowry articles ,
etc.---Production of documents as additional evidence---Scope---Plaintiffs
moved an application for submission of documents as additional evidence,
in order to prove the monthly income and financial status of the
defendant, during the trial of the suit---Said application was dismissed
vide impugned order on the ground that documents intended to be
produced, were neither appended with the plaint nor were relied upon by
the plaintiffs in the list of reliance---Family Court under first proviso to
S.7(ii) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was possessed with the
powers to allow any document to be produced, which was expedient and
just for the fair administration of justice---Additional evidence which was
necessary for just and fair decision of the case, could be allowed at any
stage of the case---Documents intended to be produced by the plaintiffs
were expedient and important for the just decision of the case---Judge
Family Court had not exercised his jurisdiction properly while passing the
impugned order and dismissed the application by the plaintiffs on the
ground that they did not append said documents with the plaint at the
time of filing the suit---Impugned judgment of the Judge Family Court,
being illegal and void was set aside and the plaintiffs were permitted to
produce additional evidence, in circumstances.
Side Appellant : Mst. HUMAIRA MAJEED

Side Opponent : HABIB AHMAD
S. 5 Sched. & S.17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.10--Recovery of gold ornaments--Decree---Non-mentioning of value of
ornaments---Decree passed by Family Court did not state value of gold
ornaments to be recovered from judgment debtor---Validity---Such decree
was not in the usual form as it directed delivery of gold ornaments but did
not state alternative of money payable in case of non-delivery of gold
ornaments by judgment debtor---Decree in question was not framed in
accordance with the provisions of O.XX, R.I0, C.P.C.---In view of S.17 of
West Pakistan. Family Courts Act, 1964, provisions of O.XX, R.10, C.P.C.
were not stricto sensu applicable to a decree obtained in a Family suit---No
provision existed in West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, similar or
corresponding to O.XX, R.10, C.P.C.---Decree passed under West Pakistan
Family Courts Act, 1964, for recovery of dowry articles including gold
ornaments or other movable property was lawful and executable, even if it
did not state monetary value payable in case movable property was not
delivered.
Rao Muhammad Ashiq Razzaq Vs Mst. Abida Shamshad, etc. (2009 C.L.R.
649 = 2009 S.L.R. 416)
FAMILY LAW --- (Writ petition)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Ex parte decree for
recovery of maintenance and dowry passed by Judge Family Court was
maintained by Appellate Court below---Assertion of writ petitioner was that
his counsel did not prosecute the cause faithfully---Held: Petitioner had
not been prosecuting his remedy with due care and attendance---Petitioner
had been engaging counsel of his own choice and if his counsel has not
prosecuting his case faithfully, remedy by way of damages or through a
complaint before appropriate forum of Bar Council---Even otherwise, law
did not provide any appeal or revision against appellate judgment/order
passed under Family Laws---Writ petition could not be considered as a
substitute for an appeal or revision---Dismissed.
Rashid Mehmood Vs Mst. Rashida Begum, etc. (2009 C.L.R. 674 = K.L.R.
2009 Civil Cases 163)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---W.P. Family Courts
Act, 1964---Suit for recovery of dowry---Decision on Special Oath--Effect---Said judgment/decree passed by Trial Court being in congruity
with special oath in terms of compromise, no appeal lay against it--Appellate Court below rightly dismissed appeal---Writ petition dismissed
by High Court.
(Para 7)
DOWRY SUIT --- (Decision on Special Oath)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---W.P. Family Courts
Act, 1964---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 161---Suit for recovery of
dower articles---Disposal of suit on Special Oath---Arrangement--Defendant/petitioner made an offer for decision of suit on Special Oath--Oath was given by father of plaintiff/respondent woman on Holy Quran to
effect that he had given articles as contained in relevant list to his
daughter/respondent and those articles were in possession of
defendant/petitioner---Judge Family Court decreed suit and the same was
upheld by Appellate Court below---Validity---Special Oath was taken as
offered and accepted---Said arrangement for disposal of suit as agreed to
by parties was a sort of compromise and was quite lawful and
permissible---None of parties could be allowed the turn round---Appellate
Court below had rightly dismissed appeal---Writ petition dismissed.
(Para 7)
May also be seen: 2008 PLR (Pesh.) 1150.
[Impugned decree in congruity with the special oath in terms of

compromise, no appeal by against it].
Mst. Ishrat Bibi Vs Muhammad Arshad and another (2013 P.L.R. 466)
MAINTENANCE CLAIM --- (Disobedient wife)
W.P. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199---Maintenance claim and
Khula---Disobedient
wife---Entitlement---Pleadings
and
evidence--Appraisal---In respect of alleged torture at hands of respondent, petitioner
except for her own statement had not bought an iota of evidence in that
regard---It otherwise did not appears to a prudent mind that why in a
short span of one month, attitude of husband towards his wife would turn
to cruel and harsh that too, in a situation when they were real cousins and
that petitioner developed so strong hatred and aversion towards
respondent whereby she was not ready to reconcile herself with the idea of
living with him as his wife and rather preferred death than to live with
him---Held: It was attitude of petitioner which made her desert her
husbands house and preferred to stay with her parents---Same could not
be termed as ouster of petitioner on part of respondent from his house but
rather a desertion on part of petitioner to leave her husbands house out of
her own sweet and free will---Thus being a disobedient wife, she had no
right to claim maintenance from respondent and same was rightly
disallowed to her by Trial Court---Moreover, as element of cruelty and
torture at hands of respondent stood absolutely disproved, therefore,
marriage was rightly dissolved on basis of Khula---Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 8,9)
[Being a disobedient wife, petitioner/plaintiff was not entitled to claim

maintenance which was rightly declined by Trial Court. High Court
dismissed writ petition].
Muhammad Arif, etc. Vs District & Sessions Judge, Sialkot, etc. (2012 PSC
180)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 2(d)---Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance, 1961---Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. I, Rr. 1, 3---Dowry
suit---Impugned judgment/decree---Improper impleadment of parties---It
was urged that respondent-woman was competent to file her suit only
against her husband and not against petitioner i.e. father, mother and
brother of her husband---Validity---Petitioner never objected to their
impleadment in written statement before Family Court or in appeal before
Appellate Court below or in writ petition before High Court or in memo. of
C.P.L.A. before Supreme Court---Moreover, question of jurisdiction of
Family Court was also not raised before any Courts---Petitioner without
demur submitted to jurisdiction of Family Court---Petitioners fully

participarted in suit trial, filed their appeal and then a writ petition--Petitioners were thus, debarred from claiming such ground for first time in
Supreme Court---Even otherwise, impleadment of petitioners as codefendants did not affect jurisdiction of Family Court to try petitioners--Leave was declined by Supreme Court.
(Para 14)
(b) Interpretation of Statutes-----And as or and vice versa---Rule of construction---When the sense so
requires and may be read as or and or as and---In ordinary use the
word OR is disjunctive while word AND is conjunctive---However, the
word or and the word and are often used interchangeably---As a result of
this common and careless use of the two words in legislation, there are
occasions when the Court, through construction, may change one to the
other---That cannot be done if the statutes meaning is clear, or if the
alteration operates to change the meaning of law---It is proper only in
order to more accurately express, or to carry out the obvious intent of the
legislation, when the statute itself furnishes cogent proof of the error of the
legislature, and especially where it will avoid absurd or impossible
consequences, or operate to harmonize the statute and give effect to all of
its provisions.
(Para 11)
(c) And as or and vice versa-----Rule of construction---Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes.
(Para 11)
(d) Family Court; Settlement of Disputes-----Pre and post trial reconciliation---Duty of Family Court---The Family
Court is required by law to use the mandatory pre and post trial
reconciliation provisions meaningfully and purposively and to endeavour
achievement of settlement/resolution/decision of the dispute(s) between
the spouses in a manner as to enable them to pursue a peaceful and
productive post-dispute life either matrimonially together or otherwise as
former spouses but without wringing on the children or other issues.
(Para 9)
(e) Family Suit-----Party---Definition---A Family suit cannot be restricted inter se the
spouses only i.e. one plaintiff against one defendant when others are
considered necessary for proper decision of the dispute or require addition
to such dispute.
(Para 9)
(f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----O. I, Rr. 1, 3---Parties to suit---General principle of law---Where persons
are jointly entitled or liable, they must be made parties to the suit as
otherwise the suit may not result into an effective, enforceable or binding
decree---It is not necessary that each plaintiff or defendant must be
equally interested in the entire subject-matter of the suit.
(Para 7)
(g) W.P. Family Court Act (XXV of 1964)-----S. 2(d)---Term Party---Meaning and scope---The definition has two
portions which for convenience are serialized as (a) and (b): (a) any person
whose presence as such is considered necessary for the proper decision of
the dispute; and (b) any person whom the Family Court adds as a party to
such dispute---This definition is though not very different from the one
obtaining under C.P.C. yet it is compulsorily more liberal and extensive
than the proverbial necessary or proper party of a civil suit---In the said
Act, the term party has been defined in the contextual necessity of proper
decision of the dispute the requirement of which determine its meaning
and scope---In addition to the necessary or proper parties was in a civil
suit, other persons considered necessary can be impleaded as parties in
the family suit---A family suit cannot be restricted inter se the spouses
only i.e. one plaintiff against one defendant when others are considered
necessary for proper decision of the dispute or require addition to such
dispute---The clear examples are the suits for the recovery of dowry items,
dower property or personal property/belongings (of wife) alleged to be in
possession or use of persons other than the husband or wife---Such
persons will per force need impleadment or addition as parties for
comprehension, final, effective and proper decision of the dispute(s) and
enforcement of the decree(s)---Similarly in the matter of custody of minor
children, persons having custody of the minors have to be parties to the
family suit---Non-impleadment of such persons may result in the
frustration of proper adjudication of the dispute by the Family Court which
also enjoys the inherent power to delete or strike out any party,
unnecessary or impugned or unconnected to the cause or the dispute and
the suit.
(Paras 5,7,8,9,10)
FAMILY SUIT --- (Improper impleadment)
(h) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 2(d)---Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance, 1961---Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. I, Rr. 1, 3---Dowry
suit---Impleadment of parties and jurisdiction of Family Court---Impugned
judgment/decree passed by Judge Family Court was maintained by
Appellate Court below as well as High Court in writ petition---Contention
was that respondent-woman was competent to file her suit only against the
husband and not against petitioner i.e. the father, mother and brother of
her husband---Party, term of---Meaning and scope---Analysis---In the Act,
term party has been defined in contextual necessity of proper decision of
the dispute, the requirements of which determine its meaning and
scope---In addition to the necessary or proper parties as in a civil suit,
other person considered necessary can be impleaded as parties in Family
suit---A family suit could not be restricted inter se the spouses only i.e.
one plaintiff against one defendant when others were considered necessary
for proper decision of the dispute or require addition to such dispute--Such person would per force need impleadment or addition as parties for a
comprehensive, final, effective and proper decision of the dispute(s) and
enforcement of decree(s)---Objections as to improper impleadment of
petitioners as suit defendants and absence of Family Courts jurisdiction
had no substance and same were rejected by Supreme Court---Even

otherwise, petitioners were thus debarred from claiming such a ground for
the first time in Supreme Court---Leave declined. (Paras 8,9,10,13,14)
Key Terms:- Parties to Family suit.
[Suit for dowry was filed against husband and also father, mother and
brother of husband were impleaded as co-defendants. Plea of petitioner
was turned down by Supreme Court that said suit was competent only
against husband and not against petitioner i.e. the father, mother and
brother of husband. Leave was declined].
Khuram Iyaz Vs District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and 2 others

(2008 P.L.R. 271)
(a) Counsel-----Decision of case in the light of offer---Scope of authority of the
counsel---It is established principle of law that a duly constituted
attorney/counsel has the implied authority to make offer for the decision
of a case through of course legal manner and in case the petitioner feels
that his learned counsel had given any consent for the decision of the suit
without having authority even then the said offer given by the learned
counsel is binding on the petitioner and the petitioners cannot wriggle out
by asserting that the said offer was neither with this consent nor with his
authority.
(Para 3)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Suit for recovery of dowry---Offer made by counsel for
decision on Special Oath---Contention that neither petitioner himself was
present nor had imparted instructions to his counsel, therefore, offer made
by his counsel was not binding upon petition---Relief in exercise of writ
jurisdiction---Question of laches---Held: Trial Court proceeded to decide
suit in light of offer made by the counsel for petitioner and accepted by
respondent---Petitioner from his conduct was estopped to file instant
Constitutional petition---As to why petitioner remained silent till date and
did not challenge the same before High Court---Conduct of petitioner
amounted to acquiescence as well as laches on his part---Writ petition
dismissed.
(Para 3)
(c) Writ petition-----Question about laches---Principle of law---Writ jurisdiction is not
covered by any period of limitation and the question of laches per se is not
a bar to the Constitutional jurisdiction and question of delay in filing
would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case.
(Para 4)
Key Terms:- Offer on Special Oath made by counsel---Arts. 199,

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. [A duly constituted attorney/counsel has
the implied authority to make offer for decision of the case on Oath].
Mst. Raheela Salamat Vs Additional District Judge etc. (2010 C.L.R. 660)
(a) Undertaking before the Court, breach of-----Breach of undertaking to the Court amounts to contempt of Court.
(Para 17)
Ref: 1998 PSC 53.
(b) Decision on oath-----Offer and acceptance---Effect---A party offering to have a cause decided
on oath and undertaking to abide by the special oath of a person (party or
not a party to the suit) cannot be allowed to resile from it. (Para 16)
Ref: 1998 PSC 53.
DECISION ON OATH --- (Breach of understanding)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Oaths Act, 1873, Ss. 8, 9, 10,
11---Suit for recovery of dowry---Decision of lis on Oath---Breach of
undertaking---An application was filed by respondent-man to decide the
fate of lis on oath---Offer was hurriedly accepted by petitioner by filing
reply wherein she categorically stated that she was ready to take oath on
Holy Quran to effect that she was entitled to recover the dowry articles
as per the list---Respondent resiled from his undertaking and finally case
was decided on merits whereby Courts below partially decreed the suit of
petitioner---Constitution petition---Validity---Courts below had not said
even a single word in impugned judgments regarding offer and acceptance
by parties to decide lis on Oath---Respondent who himself offered to take
oath on Holy Quran to decide lis could not be permitted or allowed to resile
or back out from his offer---Breach of undertaking to a Court is
tantamount to contempt of Court---Writ petition allowed/case remanded.
(Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)
Ref: 1998 PSC 53.
Key Terms:- Decision of matter on Oath.
[Party offering to have a cause decided on Oath and acceptance of offer by
other party cannot be allowed to resile].
Khalid Hamid Khan Niazi through Special Power-of-Attorney Sher Zaman

Khan Niazi Vs Tahir Khan Niazi, Civil Judge/Judge Family Court,
Rawalpindi and another (2009 C.L.R. 1164)
FAMILY COURT --- (Restoration of file)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 10(4)---Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961---Restoration of case file---After decreeing the suit for
dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula Judge Family Court
inadvertently passed orders for consigning the file in suit for recovery of
dowry---Subsequently, application of respondent/lady was allowed and the
suit for recovery of dowry was restored---Contention of writ petition was
that Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order--Validity---Suit for recovery was not decided rather not touched at all---No
decision or order was passed in suit for recovery of dowry---No element of
review was involved as no decision whatsoever was taken in suit for
recovery of dowry---It was only thoroughly sheer inadvertence that Judge
Family Court proceeded to consign the file of the recovery---Writ petition
dismissed.
Mst. Shazia Haider Vs Gul Islam (2015 P.L.R. 40 = 2015 S.L.R 61)
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE---(Khula)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Suit for dissolution
of marriage---Grant of Khula decree---It was asserted that petitioner never
claimed the dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula rather petitioner
claimed dissolution of marriage on basis of cruelty but Trial Court while
deciding said issue wrongly and illegally converted same into decree for
Khula and restored dower in favour of respondent-husband---Pleadings
and evidence---When the plea of Khula was not specifically taken in the
plaint whether Khula decree could be passed or not?---Key proposition--When petitioner in her plaint had specifically stated that she had
developed severe hatred and therefore was not in a position to live with
respondent and even during pre and post trial reconciliation proceedings
petitioner did not want to settle herself with respondent inspite of great
efforts by Trial Court and Court was compelled to hold that there is no
chance of reconciliation between parties and the petitioners hatred had
reached such an extent that it was not possible for her to live with him
within limits ordained by Almighty Allah, said contention of petitioner was
not forceful in circumstances of case---Petitioner had not been able to
point out any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional defect in impugned
judgment---Writ petition dismissed.
(Para 10)
Ref. PLJ 2012 SC (AJK) 39, 1998 CLC 1929, 1995 CLC 957, 1994 CLC
230, 1993 MLD 1587, PLD 1995 Lah. 287, 2004 CLC 17, 2006 YLR 2204,
2013 MLD 760, 2000 YLR 2678.

[Although ground of Khula was not taken in plaint, since during evidence
petitioner had recorded her statement to the effect that she had developed
hatred towards respondent and, therefore, could not live any cost as wife
with him. Trial Court had rightly passed decree for dissolution of marriage
on basis of Khula. High Court dismissed suit].
Fakhar Abbas Vs Additional District Judge, Tandlianwala, District

Faisalabad, etc. (2015 S.L.R. 159)
(a) Family Court-----Family Courts are established under the Family Courts Act, 1964, which
is a special law thus the Court can adopt any mode which is not
inconsistent to the Family Courts Act, 1964 or the Rules framed
thereunder, for advancement and meeting the ends of justice.
(Para 12)
CLOSING RIGHT OF DEFENCE --- (Power of Family Court)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Suit for recovery of dowry and
maintenance allowance---Petitioner/defendant neither deposited costs nor
filed written statement as required under law---Judge Family Court struck
off petitioners right of defence and proceeded against him ex parte---As a
consequence of ex parte evidence, Judge Family Court granted decree
which was maintained by Appellate Court below---It was asserted that
right of petitioner to file written statement had illegally been closed since
the Judge Family Court was not empowered to pass such an order--Special law---There is even no provision to that effect that in case of failure
by a party to file written statement or to lead evidence his right of filing of
written statement or evidence could not be closed in any circumstance--Petitioner had availed sufficient opportunities to file written statement but
he had failed to submit the same---Family Court could adopt any mode
which is not inconsistent to the Family Courts Act or the Rules framed
thereunder, for advancement and meeting the ends of justice---Both the
Courts below had rightly adjudged claim of respondents and rightly
decreed suit---Petitioner himself was responsible for same as he remained
indolent throughout proceedings before Judge Family Court and he could
not seek equity from High Court in exercise of Constitutional
jurisdiction---Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or material
irregularity in judgments of both the Courts below---Writ petition
dismissed.
(Paras 11, 12, 14)
Ref. 2004 CLC 703, 2011 SCMR 676.
/

[Despite availing of sufficient opportunities, defendant/ petitioner failed to
file written statement. Having struck off right of defence, Judge Family
Court had rightly passed ex parte decree. High Court dismissed writ
petition].
Mst. Nazia Bibi Vs Muhammad Saleem, etc. (2013 C.L.R. 63)
PAST MAINTENANCE --- (Desertion of wife)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Claim for
maintenance---Desertion of wife---Legal point---Simpliciter desertion of
wife cannot entitle her to get maintenance from husband---Wife would only
be entitled to get maintenance if she was deserted by the husband for any
of his act or omission.
Abdul Rafay Butt Vs ADJ, etc. (2015 S.L.R. 105)

MAINTENANCE TO A DIVORCED WIFE---(Iddat period)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 10(4)---Dissolution of
marriage on ground of Khula---Maintenance claim ---Iddat period--Issues---Pleading and evidence---Courts below concurrently decreed suit
for recovery of dowry/maintenance allowance---Appreciation of evidence--Validity---At time of marriage between parties eight bangles of gold were
fixed as dower as recorded in column No. 13 of Nikahnama--Petitioener/defendant himself did not appear in witness-box rather on his
behalf case was defended by his real brother as special attorney who in his
affidavit (Exh.) stated that at time of marriage eight tolas gold bangles were
given to respondent/plaintiff as dower---Neither said witnesses of Nikah or
Nikah Registrar were produced by petitioner to substantiate his contention
that dower was paid to respondent at time of marriage---In attending
circumstances, petitioner had not been able to prove payment of dower i.e.
eight tolas gold bangles to respondent at time of Nikah---A Muslim
divorcee woman cannot re-marry for three months and in case of death of
husband for four months and ten days---Said period of probation is called
Iddat---Respondent was entitled to get maintenance allowance for that
period on account of stated condition---High Court did not find any legal
infirmity or jurisdictional error in impugned findings declaring respondent
entitled to get maintenance allowance for Iddat period---Writ petition
dismissed.
(Paras 7,9,14,15)
Syed Nazim Hussain Zaidi Vs Judge, IVth Additional District Judge,

Karachi Central and 2 others (2013 C.L.R. 1544)
FAMILY SUIT --- (Issue of territorial jurisdiction)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Court Rules, 1965, R. 6---Suit for dissolution of
marriage and recovery of dowry articles
---Issue of territorial jurisdiction---Petitioner had moved an application for
return of plaint which was dismissed by Courts below---Contention was
that Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit in view of
fact that respondent was not residing at address mentioned in plaint--Legal position---In case of suit for dissolution of marriage or dower,
jurisdiction also vests in Court within the local limits of which the wife
ordinarily resides---In instant case respondent was residing at house of
her maternal uncle on account of apprehension of abduction---Held:
Family Court which passed said judgment/decree was fully competent to
entertain suit and place of residence of respondent---Moreover
constitutional petition against an interim order would not be
maintainable---Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 3, 4)
Ref: 1996 SCMR 1165, 2009 MLD 766, 2002 MLD 1655.
[In instant case, respondent lady was residing in house of her maternal
uncle on account of opportunity of her abduction, hence Family Court was
competent to entertain suit for dissolution of marriage/recovery of dowry
and the place of residence of respondent. High Court dismissed writ
petition].
Safdar Hussain Vs District Judge and others (2014 LAW NOTES 218)
PAST MAINTENANCE CLAIM---(Consent)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Civil Procedure Code,
1908, S. 12(2)---Suit for maintenance and dowry---Consent decree--Petitioner sought setting aside of said decree pleading that same was
obtained by playing fraud and amount of maintenance awarded beyond
period of three years---Absence of issues---Validity---A decree for
maintenance may not be granted for a period of more than three years
even under consent---However, husband may give as much as he wants
voluntarily---In all applications u/S. 12(2), CPC issues are necessarily to
be framed---Respondents would not be entitled to claim maintenance for
more than 3 years---Writ petition dismissed accordingly.
(Paras 5,6)
Ref. 1996 SCMR 1105, 2001 SCMR 46, 2007 SCMR 49.

[A decree for maintenance may not be granted for a period of more than
three years even under consent].
2014 C.L.R. 1054

Judges
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Appeliant & Repondent: Mst. Nabeela Shaheen, etc. Vs Zia Wazeer Bhatti,
etc.
(a) Nikahnama, evidentiary value---
---Nikahnama is a public document which is registered under the Muslim

Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and as such presumption of truth is
attached to it.
(Para 8)
ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE --- (Source of income)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---W.P. Family Courts
Act,
1964---Matrimonial
dispute---Maintenance/dower
suit--Enhancement---Source of income---Issues---Appreciation of evidence--Validity---Respondent had not been able to deny that he was getting
sufficient subsistence allowance being a UK national---When there was no
evidence that said petitioner-woman had been living apart from her
husband without any lawful excuse, she was entitled to get maintenance
allowance as prayed for in her suit till the subsistence of marriage--Similarly, co-petitioner who was minor son of respondent was a school
going child and he being a patient of asthma was also required to meet
considerable expense on his medication---In those circumstances,
maintenance of minor son fixed at rate of Rs. 5000/- per month seemed to
be insufficient to meet requirements---High Court enhanced rate of
maintenance of minor from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10000/- with 10% annual
increase---There was no force in contention that entries in nikahnama had
been interpolated---Nikahnama is a public document---Even respondent
did not bother to avail his remedy against alleged interpolation in the
Nikahnama---Writ petition allowed.
(Paras 8, 9)
Ref: NLR 2011 Civil 293, PLD 2000 Lah. 355.
/

[There was no evidence that petitioner-wife was living
apart from
respondent/husband without any jurisdiction. High Court while allowing
writ petition enhanced amount of maintenance allowance].
M. Anwar Vs Mst. Kanwal Bibi (K.L.R. 2010 Civil Cases 4)

(a) Maintenance to Minors-----Duty of father---Law---It is the duty of the father to maintain his minor
children and maintenance shall be at least bare minimum for the
maintenance of the child.
(Para 2)
(b) W.P. Family Courts Act (1964)-----S. 14---Maintenance decree---Appeal on behalf of Judgment-debtor is
incompetent due to bar contained in said section.
(Para 2)
MAINTENANCE --- (Quantum)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 14---Maintenance allowance to
minor---Quantum---Held: Amount of maintenance fixed by Judge Family
Court to tune of Rs. 500/- per month and that too without any increase
was ridiculous---Petitioner/fathers appeal before lower Court was
incompetent---High Court enhanced the amount of maintenance of minor
from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- per month alongwith 10% annual increase--Impugned order modified---Order accordingly. (Para 2)
Key Terms:- Maintenance. [High Court increased the amount of
maintenance of minor Rs. 1000/- from Rs. 500/- per month with annual
increase].
Saif Ullah Vs Maimoona Almas, etc. (2013 C.L.R. 261)

CLAIM OF DOWRY, MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE ETC. --- (Entitlement)
W.P. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-----W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art.
199---Claim of dowry, maintenance allowance etc.---Entitlement--Issues---Appraisal of evidence---Validity---During cross-examination,
petitioner/defendant admitted his monthly salary as Rs. 9,944/- and he
further admitted 50% enhancement in the basic pay and enhancement in
medical allowance---Judge Family Court after due appreciation of evidence
available on record awarded maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month to
minor which had rightly been maintained by Appellate Court below---In
instant case, petitioner was a Govt. employee---Factual basis for
enhancement was available to Courts below which was duly considered by
them in awarding 10% annual increase in maintenance allowance of
minor---Contention that there was no provision in the Family Courts Act to
annual enhancement of maintenance was repelled---Judge Family Court
had rightly granted 10% annual enhancement keeping in view periodic
increase in monthly salary/income of petitioner considering ever growing
needs of minor alongwith rampant inflation in country---In his written
statement, petitioner stated that respondent tried her level best to restrain
him from meeting with minor and he had to file application for his
custody---In such acrimonious circumstances, it was beyond
comprehension that petitioner would have paid medical expenses on birth
of the minor--- Furthermore, petitioner had also failed to produce any
documentary evidence like an official docket or advance cash deposit
receipt of hospital from which it could be inferred that he got respondent
admitted in hospital, therefore, findings of Courts below on said issue were
un-exceptional---Appellate Court below was not justified in modifying
decree of Family Court by excluding items in question--Respondent/plaintiff had proved through reliable and convincing evidence
that she was entitled to a decree for recovery of dowry articles---Judge
Family Court was not justified in depriving her from gold ornaments on
basis of an ill-founded assumption which was not supported by record or
evidence produced by petitioner---Petitioner in his affidavit neither
rebutted said version of respondent nor stated that at time of desertion
respondent took gold ornaments with her, therefore, in absence of any
rebuttal, Courts below were not justified in depriving respondent from the
gold ornaments---Courts below had rightly held that respondent being a
disobedient wife was not entitled to recover maintenance allowance during
period of desertion---Writ petition partly allowed.
(Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
[Courts below had rightly held that respondent being a disobedient wife
was not entitled to recover maintenance allowance during period of
desertion. Writ petition was partially allowed].
Mst. Naveeda Kausar, etc. Vs Mauzzam Khan, etc. (2016 S.L.R. 127)
FAMILY DISPUTE---(Oral Talaq)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Principles of Muhammadan
Law by D.F. Mullah; Para 310---Family dispute---Oral divorce---Effect--Oral divorce given thrice becomes irrevocable and becomes effective the
moment same was pronounced---Oral Talaq is as good as Talaq in writing
and it was duty of husband to send notice to Chairman, Union Council
concerned relating to divorce---Parties adduced evidence therefore, the
non-framing of issue on said point was not fatal---Claim of petitioner on
basis of Column No. 16 qua recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of divorce
could not be granted to her by Judge Family Court, however, she may seek
appropriate remedy before Court of competent jurisdiction---As far as
decree for restitution of conjugal rights was concerned, it had become
redundant---Impugned judgments/decrees were in accordance with
evidence available on record with regard to rest of issues decided by Courts
bellow---Writ petition partially accepted.
(Paras 6,17,19,20)
Ref. 1999 CLC 878, 1983 CLC 133, 2013 CLC 928, 2009 MLD 671, 2012
CLC 321, PLD 2000 Q. 46, PLD 2007 Lah. 515, PLD 2011 SC 260, 1995
CLC 724, PLD 1988 FSC 42, PLD 1988 Kar. 169, 1992 SCMR 1273, 1983
SCMR 942.

[Oral divorce given thrice becomes effective the moment same was
pronounced. High Court partially allowed writ petition].
Mst. Naveeda Kausar, etc. Vs Mauzzam Khan, etc. (2016 S.L.R. 347)
COLUMN No. 16 OF NIKAHNAMA --- (Remedy)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---Family Courts Act, 1964---Column No. 16 of Nikahnama--Remedy---Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
column No. 16 qua recovery of money in case of divorce---Petitioner/wife
may file appropriate remedy before Court of competent jurisdiction.

[COLUMN 6 OF NIKAHNAMA]
(Para 7)
Ref: PLD 2011 SC 260, PLD 2007 Lah. 515, 2012 CLC 321, 2000 MLD
671, 2013 CLC 928.
(b) High Court and relief-----High Court can grant relief flowing from pleadings and evidence of
parties---Law established.
(Para 3)
(c) Oral Talaq-----Oral talaq is as good as Talaq in writing and it was duty of the husband
to send notice to Chairman, Union Council concerned relating to divorce.
[ORAL DIVORCE]
(Para 12)
(d) Oral divorce-----Oral divorce given thrice becomes irrevocable and becomes effective the
moment same was pronounced. [ORAL TALAQ]
(Para 12)
Ref: 1983 SCMR 42, PLD 1985 FSC 42, 1992 SCMR 1273, PLD 2000
Quetta 46, PLD 1988 Kar. 169, PLD 1988 FSC 42, 1995 CLC 724.
16
[Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon column No. 16

qua recovery of money in case of divorce].
Abdi Hussain Vs Judge Family Court, etc. (2015 S.L.R. 737)

NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL --- (Consequences)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 9(6)---Ex parte decree for
recovery of maintenance allowance---Case was fixed for reconciliation
proceedings on which date respondent-lady entered appearance and got
recorded her statement that she was ready to rehabilitate with petitioner if
he would paid her dower and provide maintenance allowance---However,
petitioner did not appear, therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken
against him which culminated into ex parte decree---Assertion of petitioner
was that ex parte judgment/decree was passed on account of failure of
respective counsel for petitioner to inform him about date of hearing when
he was supposed to appear---Application for setting aside ex parte decree
was dismissed by Courts below on ground that negligence of counsel was
not a valid ground to set aside the ex parte decree---Appellate Court below
while dismissing appeal had not appreciated proposition that the
proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee had not resulted into warning
to the said counsel and the Disciplinary Committee in its said order had
already referred to pendency of appeal---Held: Since due to negligence of

counsel, petitioner had not been informed about progress, said order
passed by Family Court had seriously prejudiced case of petitioner--Further held: Some amount must be paid by petitioner to respondent
immediately which may be subsequently adjusted by Family Court, if a
decree was passed---Impugned order was set aside---Suit would be deemed
to be pending before Family Court concerned---Writ petition allowed/case
remanded.
(Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)
Ref: 2011 SCMR 1341.
Muhammad Shahid Farooq Vs Judge Family Court, etc. (2014 S.L.R. 513)
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE --- (Return of benefits)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 10(4)---Dissolution of
Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, S. 2---Decree for dissolution of marriage--Return of benefits---Controversy---It was contended that it was incumbent
upon Judge Family Court the pass an order for return of said benefits--Pleadings/evidence---Respondent was entitled to decree for dissolution of
marriage on basis of non-provision of maintenance allowance and nonperformance of conjugal rights on part of petitioner/husband---Held:
Judge Family Court was obliged to pass a decree for dissolution of
marriage on basis of said grounds and not on ground of Khula--Respondent/wife was not obliged to return the benefits which she had
received from petitioner/husband---Writ petition dismissed.
Ref: PLD 2007 Lah. 626, 2006 MLD 87, 2006 SCMR 100.
Amanullah Vs Mst. Jan Bibi and another (2010 P.L.R. 1206)

(a) Family Court-----Procedure---Application of C.P.C.---The provisions of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, would not be applicable in stricto senso to proceedings before
the Family Court, however, principle of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would
be attracted, when there is no conflict between provisions of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
(Para 12)
Ref. 1999 CLC 81.
Abdul Hafeez Vs Shamaila Bibi and 2 others (2013 PSC 1181)

(a) Family suit---
---Issue of cruelty---For proof of cruelty, infliction of injury is not the

requirement of law, in matrimonial matters, the Courts have always treated
the false allegation against wife as cruelty which result into mental torture
and loss of mutual confidence.
MATRIMONIAL MATTERS --- (Cruelty/Maintenance allowance/Dowrey)
(b) AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974-----S. 42---AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993---Suit for dissolution of
marriage/maintenance allowance dower and dowry articles
---Issues---Re-appraisal of evidence---Contention that factor of cruelty was
not proved by plaintiff-respondent as she herself or any other PW appeared
before Court had not stated that any sign of injury caused by appellant on
person of plaintiff-respondent had been witnessed---Held: Such a
contention itself was indicated of cruel mentality on part of appellant---For
proof of cruelty, infliction of injury is not the requirement of law, in
matrimonial matters, the Courts have always treated the false allegation
against wife as cruelty which result into mental torture and loss of mutual
confidence---Plaintiff-respondent in support of alleged cruelty had
produced PWs who deposed that appellant had been treating plaintiffrespondent in an ill-manner---Moreover, as it was alleged by plaintiffrespondent that appellant-husband had levelled false allegation of bad
character of wife---Fact of cruelty had been proved and nothing against it
had been brought by appellant on record---According to contract of
marriage, appellant had to transfer a house comprising of two rooms in
name of plaintiff-respondent in lieu of deferred dower amount---Plaintiffrespondent categorically alleged in her plaint that appellant had not
transferred house after marriage in name of plaintiff-respondent in lieu of
remaining dower amount worth Rs. 1,37,000/---In support of her claim
she produced witnesses who categorically supported version of plaintiffrespondent---Appellant failed to rebut claim of plaintiff-respondent,
therefore, plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover deferred amount of
dower---Plaintiff-respondent alongwith plaint had produced a list of
articles given at time of marriage to her---It was also evident from
Nikahnama---Plaintiff-respondent had proved that the dowry items were
still laying with appellant and said fact had been proved by plaintiffrespondent in her own statement as well as statements of witnesses
produced by her in the Court---Trial Court as well as Shariat Court while
passing decree for recovery of dowry had appreciated and concluded the
matter in its true perspective---Civil appeal was dismissed by Supreme
Court.
(Paras 8, 9, 10)
[Courts below had correctly passed decree for dissolution of marriage on
basis of cruelty and non-payment of maintenance allowance against
appellant and decreed suit for recovery of dowry articles after proper
appreciation of evidence. Supreme Court dismissed appeal].
Farzana Rasool and three others Vs Dr. Muhammad Bashir and others
(2012 PSC 96)
(a) Undertaking in the Court-----Retraction---Legal consequences---Undertaking given by a party in the

Court of law has to be given sanctity because on one hand there is legal
estoppel and on the other hand moral and ethical against it---Such
retraction cannot be allowed because the same would result in distrust of
the public litigants in the judiciary and would tarnish the sacred image of
the Judicial Officers before whom once a consent is given by making a
statement on oath had later on withdrawn---If such practice is allowed to
prevail and is ignored by the Courts, it cannot add to the trust of public
litigants in the judiciary and Judicial System but would reflect on lack of
trust in judiciary, which cannot be permitted because sanctity to the
judicial proceedings has to be preserved at any cost.
(Para 34)
(b) Compromise, option of-----Option to enter into a compromise at any stage of the trial vests with the
parties before the pronouncement of the judgment.
(Para 31)
(c) Compromise in matrimonial relation; concept of-----Efforts should be made by the Judge Family Court to bring about
compromise/settlement between the spouses for their reunion and for
their living together---With the same spirit and on the same analogy, any
such attempt made by the Judge Family Court for settlement of any
matrimonial dispute including the issue of dower, dowry, maintenance etc.
is to advance the concept of Islamic Principle i.e. settlement of dispute in
an amicable manner---Concept of compromise in matrimonial relations, as
mandated by Allah Almighty, is to be read in Sections 10 and 12 of the Act.
(Para 28)
(d) W.P. Family Courts Act (1964)-----Preamble---Settlement of disputes and disposal of the matter--Connotation---The preamble has its two parts; one settlement of disputes
and the other disposal of the matter---The word settlement used in
preamble appears to be more akin and in consonance with Sections 10
and 12 of the Act, which provides that the Family Court shall take steps at
pre and post trial stages, to bring about compromise and
settlement/reconciliation between the parties---The second part of the
preamble relates to disposal of disputes which would mean that if
settlement fails then the dispute shall be disposed of on merits.
(Para 22)
(e) Matrimonial disputes and compromise-----Principle---Scope of application---It is generally said that it is better to
have no house than to have a broken one i.e. all efforts should be made
that spouses even if separated are brought to reunion---Principle of
bringing about comparison between the spouses for their union/re-union
is to be applied even in ancillary mattes, like disputes between husband

and wife in respect of dower, dowry, maintenance and all other allied
matters under consideration before the Court.
(Para 20)
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES --- (Resolution through arbitration)
(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185(3)---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, Ss. 10, 12---Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance, 1961---Suit for recovery of dowry articles
, dower and suit for maintenance---Matrimonial disputes---Resolution
through panel of Advocates/Arbitrators---Mode---In instant case during
pendency of his transfer application, respondent-husband/defendant
himself made a voluntarily statement jto go for settlement of all his
matrimonial disputes with his wife-appellant/plaintiff by the panel of three
Advocates, that too of his own choice as he himself nominated them to the
member of the panel of Arbitrators and that he gave an undertaking that
their decision would be binding on him---Said statement on oath was
recorded by District Judge followed by recording statement of counsel for
appellant-wife and the matter with consent was sent to transferee court
where unanimous Salsi Award/decision of panel of Advocates was taken by
Judge Family Court on record and was made basis of its judgment/decree
which was upheld by Appellate Court below---High Court allowed writ
petition and set aside judgments/decree of lower Courts inter alia on
ground that Arbitrators could not be directed to decide the matter pending
before a competent forum---Civil appeal in Supreme Court---(i) Whether
such procedure was lawfully adopted and followed; and (ii) Whether
respondent-husband, when in fact not only originated an option but also
consented that the matter be referred to the panel of Advocates and when
their decision came adverse, could retract and step back to his own
offer?---Questions for determination---Examination of relevant provisions
of law---Preamble---Analogy---Efforts should be made by Judge Family
Court to bring about compromise/settlement between the spouses for their
reunion and for their living together---With the same spirit and on the
same analogy, any such attempt made by a Judge Family Court for
settlement of any matrimonial dispute including the issue of dower, dowry,
maintenance etc. is to advance the concept of Islamic principle i.e.
settlement of dispute in an amicable manner---Judgment/decree of Family
Court which had been confirmed in appeal by Appellate Court below did
not suffer from any jurisdictional error, nor the said judgments/decrees
were in any manner in conflict with procedure prescribed under the Act--Matter was never referred by the Court to the panel of three
Advocates/Arbitrators but it was the respondent/husband who voluntarily
made a statement before the Court for resolution of his matrimonial
disputes by the panel of Advocates/Arbitrators, nominated by him, but
later objected to it---Such conduct of respondent had to be condemned--Impugned judgment/decree of High Court was set aside and judgment and
decree passed by Judge Family Court upheld in appeal were restored--Civil appeal allowed.
(Paras 31,34)
Ref. PLD 1993 Q 1, NLR 1998 Crl. 355, 2003 MLD 547, 1984 CLC 638.
SECTION 13
Nazia Umer Vs Judge Family Court, etc. (2010 LAW NOTES 474)
(a) Execution of decree by Family Court-----Procedure---Application of CPC---In executing its own decree by the
Judge Family Court, he can press into service even the procedure provided
in Civil Procedure Code of execution of his own decrees notwithstanding
Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 which exclude
the application of CPC but at the same time in execution proceedings when
the Judge Family Court executes his own decree by following the
provisions of Order XXI, CPC he acts as a Civil Court.
(Para 5)
EXECUTION OF DOWER DECREE --- (Procedure)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 17---Civil Procedure Code,
1908, O. XXI, R. 89---Dower decree---Execution proceedings---In instant
case before confirmation of auction in favour of petition/highest bidder,
respondent/judgment-debtor made full payment of decretal amount--Auction in favour of petitioner was not confirmed---Contention was that
petitioner/bidder was entitled to get 5% of deposited amount---Held:
Petitioner had participated in auction proceedings and paid full amount of
sale---Petitioner was entitled to get 5% of amount deposited by judgmentdebtor in case of non-confirmation of sale in her favour on accused of
payment made by judgment-debtor---In executing its own decree by the
Family Court it could press into service even procedure provided in CPC--Respondent/judgment-debtor was directed to pay 5% of amount deposited
to petitioner deposited by him who participated in auction proceedings--Order accordingly.
(Para 5)
Key Terms:- Execution of decree by Family Court.
[Judge Family Court is empowered to adopt the procedure of CPC during
execution proceedings].
Najeeb Ahmad Abbasi Vs M.A.G., etc. (2011 C.L.R. 520)

Salary of a person serving in Pakistan Army can be attached in execution
of decree passed by Family Court. However, exemption is available in case
of order/decree passed by Civil/Revenue Court.
Mst. Rehana Rehman Vs Family Judge and others (2011 C.L.R. 544)
Pension of judgment-debtor/petitioner could not be attached in execution
of decree for recovery of maintenance etc. High Court allowed writ petition
to that extent.
Mst. Shamim Akhtar, etc. Vs Anwar Ali and others (2015 C.L.R. 74)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----O. XXXII, R. 7---Compromise on behalf of minors---Guardian ad lilem is
required to obtain prior permission from the Guardian Court for entering
into a compromise.
REVIEW
(d) Review, remedy of-----The remedy by filing of review petition is the creation of statute, it des
not vest in the Court unless provided by law.
(Para 6)
(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XXI, Rr. 11, 60---W.P. Family
Courts Act, 1964---Execution proceedings in respect of decree passed by
Judge Family Court---Executing Court recalled its earlier order and
ordered release of pension of respondent-judgment-debtor---Contention
was that respondent-judgment-debtor in that manner succeeded in
obtaining impugned order which amounted to review---Held: Executing
Court could not pass impugned order reviewing its earlier order---Even if
earlier order be void altogether, the law provides a course for rectifying the
wrong---Remedy by way of filing of review petition is the creation of the
statute, it does not vest in a Court unless provided by law---Impugned
order having been passed without jurisdiction was set aside by High
Court---Writ petition succeeded.
RECORDING
PRACTICE
OF
EVIDENCE-
PROPER
PROCEDURE
&
RAMPANT
Roman Asghar Vs Mst. Samina Yasmin and another (2010 C.L.R. 194)
(a) Family Court-----Family Courts are vested with the powers to allow any witness to
produce any documents on record and to pass orders they deem expedient
and just for the decision of a case.
(Para 10)
May also be seen: 2005 Law Notes (Sh.C. AJ&K) 1400.
(b) Family Court---
--Mode of evidence---Formulated---Since the change of procedure for

examination-in-chief has changed in family suits and instead of deposing
verbally the parties are allowed to submit their affidavits on the basis of
which they are cross-examined---There seems to be confusion qua the
documentary evidence---Separate dates are set by Family Courts for
submission of documentary evidence and this is normally done after the
cross-examination---This is in turn leads to the fact that witnesses cannot
be confronted with the documents and causes confusion---This practice
needs to be modified---The only requirement under the law is that proper
procedure should be adopted by the Family Courts to decide it within
reasonable time and after hearing both the parties---Family Courts being
special Courts can regulate their own procedure which is more flexible so
that family matters can be settled by way of administration of justice in its
true sense unhindered by technicalities---If documentary evidence is
mentioned in the affidavit and it has been stated as annexures or exhibits
it should be considered exhibited specially in the light of the fact that a
copy of the affidavit is given to the party cross-examining---Then it is upto
the party conducting the cross-examination to confront if the need be
there---However, it is mandatory that the letters of the alphabet and
numbers of exhibits be written on all the documents by the Court itself
and it not be left to the respondent---Having said that parties in suits for
recovery of maintenance must be allowed to put on file and/or exhibit
receipt of reasonable expenditure incurred after institution of the suit of
maintenance.
(Paras 10, 11)
MAINTENANCE SUIT --- (Documentary evidence)
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 7(2)---Suit for recovery by
maintenance---Documentary evidence---Issue of---Objection of writ
petitioner was that documentary evidence was exhibited in absence of the
counsel for petitioner un-lawfully---Validity---Petitioner had crossexamined said respondent/ PW, he should be objected to documentary
evidence at that time---Documentary evidence was not objected to at time
of cross-examination---Counsel for petitioner to cover up his negligence
was obstructing course of justice---Respondent/plaintiff in her list of
documents and reliance had mentioned documents to be exhibited and
ones she has placed reliance on---Mode of evidence being at the discretion
of Family Court, it was bound to allow what is in interest of justice and
exercise its own powers to prevent course of justice from being deflected
from path that leads to fair and just decision---Writ petition dismissed by
High Court.
(Paras 12, 13)
Key Terms:- Mode of evidence in Family Court.
[Before Family Court the mode of exhibit of document was not objected to
at time of cross-examination. Writ petition dismissed].
Mst. Farzana Younis Vs A.D.J., etc. (2009 C.L.R. 652 = K.L.R. 2009 Civil
Cases 141)
(a) Cross-examination-----Witnesses having not been examined, their statements must be held to
have emerged unscathed.
Hafiz Mumraiz Khan Vs Mst. Kalsoom Bibi (2010 C.L.R. 930)

STATEMENT IN PREVIOUS SUIT --- (Estoppel)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Recovery of dower amount--Admission in previous suit---Evidence---Estoppal---Controversy---Father of
respondent-lady in another suit stated that Mehr as paid in his presence
and he being a poor man had not given any dowry to her daughter--Effect---Respondent lady/PW appeared in instant suit but no suggestion
was put to her during cross-examination that in previous round of
litigation her father had admitted about receipt of dower amount---Only
suggestion given to said PW was that her father appeared as a witness in a
previous suit---Said statement made by the father of PW in a previous suit
could not be illegally used against respondent in order to deprive her from
the dower amount---No misreading or non-reading of any material
evidence and impugned concurrent findings of facts of Courts below---Writ
petition dismissed.
(Para 8)
May also be seen: 1986 PSC (SC) Pak. 95.
Key Terms:- Estoppel.
[Statement of a party in another suit cannot operate or estoppel in absence
of compensation on that particular fact].
Asif Rafique Vs Mst. Qurat-ul-Ain and 2 others (2015 S.L.J. 534)

(b) Appreciation of evidence---Where in proof of a fact, oral words of one
party are against the oral words of other party, the Court would rely upon
documentary and other circumstantial evidence to find as to which party
is speaking truth---Principle.
Mst. Rehmat Bibi etc. Vs Haji Allah Dewaya and 2 others (2009 P.L.R. 329)
(a) Documentary Evidence-----Photo-copy of document---Admissibility in evidence---When a document
is admitted in evidence without objection and the same is placed on record
and then no subsequent objection can be raised to its admissibility of a
document at a later stage. Ref. 1987 CLC 1103.
Mst. Rehmat Bibi etc. Vs Haji Allah Dewaya and 2 others (2009 P.L.R. 329)
(c) Nikahnama---
---Document---Requirement of registration---Mandate---The Nikahnama is

not compulsorily registerable.
ONJECTION ON EXHIBITING A DOCUMENT

Khurram Zulfiqar Ali Vs Mst. Benish Mubarak and another (2009 C.L.R.
1147)
(a) Family Matter-----Law of evidence and Civil Procedure Code are not made applicable in a
family matter.
(Para 6)
May also be seen: 2008 CLR (Lah.) 1496; 2008 CLR (Lah.) 1192.
FAMILY MATTER --- (Interim order)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964---Family matter---Exhibiting a
document---Objection---Petitioner/ex-husband contended that receipt of
dowry articles
produced by respondent/ex-wife in suit for recovery of dower etc. were
forged hence should not be allowed to be exhibited---Impugned
interlocutory order---Held: Law of evidence and C.P.C. not being applicable
concept of exhibiting a document in a civil case would not apply in a family
matter either---Impugned order was nothing more than an interlocutory
order against which writ petition even otherwise was normally not allowed
to be entertained---Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 6,7)
(c) Family Matter-----Presentation of document by one person and exhibiting it would not
always mean acceptance of its contents also especially in a family case.
(Para 6)
[In Family case, law of evidence and C.P.C. are not applicable].
Niaz Abbas Vs A.D.J. etc (2009 C.L.R. 190)

(b) Family cases---Family matters are not decided strictly on the yardstick
of procedural laws nor any other principle aimed at the observance of the
technicalities.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Sheheryar Gul Vs The State (2015 P.L.R. 1205)

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE --- (Power of Judge Family Court)
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, Ss. 9, 7---Family suit--Production of additional evidence---Power of Judge Family Court---Family
Court is empowered to allow either of the parties to call any of the
witnesses at any later stage if it considers such evidence expedient to the
interest of justice---Features of case---Petitioner had earlier filed a suit for
restitution of conjugal rights and had presented his list of witnesses to the
extent of his claim in suit but later on respondent when appeared and
submitted her written statement, claimed dissolution of marriage etc. as
counter-claim---So naturally petitioner had to file better statement in
shape of rejoinder and also submit list of witnesses therewith---Not only
request of petitioner for production of additional evidence was turned
down, so much so his list annexed with better statement was also
rejected---Impugned order---Validity---Impugned order was illegal and
based on misreading and wrong interpretation of law on subject--Impugned order was set aside---Writ petition allowed.
(Paras 4, 6, 8)

[Judge Family Court is empowered to call any of witnesses at any later
stage if it consider such evidence expedient to interest of justice. High
Court allowed writ petition].
Sheheryar Gul Vs Mst. Sadaf Bib (2016 P.L.R. 58)

AMENDED LIST OF WITNESSES --- (Changed circumstances)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 9---Suit for restitution of
conjugal rights---Respondent when appeared and submitted her written
statement claimed dissolution of marriage etc.---Changed circumstances--Amended list of witnesses---Not only petitioners request for production of
additional evidence was turned down, so much so, his list annexed was
also rejected---Impugned order---Validity---Judge Family Court is
empowered to allow either of the parties to call any of the witnesses at any
later stage if it considers such evidence expedient to the interest of
justice---Impugned order was not only misconceived but also was illegal
and based on misreading and wrong interpretation of law on subject--Impugned order was set aside and Trial Court was decided to examine the
witnesses mentioned in the application filed by petitioner---Writ petition
accepted.
(Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)

[In suit for restitution of conjugal rights, on account of changed situation,

petitioner requested for filing of amended list of witnesses which was
erroneously turned down by Judge Family Court. High Court allowed writ
petition].
Wahab Ahmad Vs Mst. Shaista Jabin and another (2015 S.L.R. 173)
(a) Family Court-----Family Courts have been absolved from the procedural rigors provided
under ordinary procedural codes e.g. the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
(Para 13)
FAMILY SUIT --- (List of witnesses)
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 199---W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964, Ss. 7, 15---Suit for restitution
of conjugal rights and recovery of dowry/maintenance---List of
witnesses---Application filed by respondent for including names of
witnesses in list of witnesses and for recording their evidence was
allowed---It was argued that when respondent initially did not incorporate
names of intended witnesses in list, she was precluded to either
incorporate said names in the list or to apply for recording of their
evidence---If once a plaintiff fails to incorporate the name of any witness in
the list of witnesses appended with the plaint, whether that omission will
operate as a compete bar against the plaintiff to apply for the incorporation
of names of witnesses and for recording of their evidence later on?---Moot
point---It is left at the judicial discretion of the concerned Court to decide
the said issue on the sole consideration that such evidence is expedient in
the interest of justice---Family Courts have been absolved from the
procedural rigors provided under the ordinary procedural codes e.g. the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Order under challenge was even otherwise an
interlocutory and interim order and unless the same suffered with patent
illegality but jurisdiction could not be interfered with to set the same at
naught---Impugned order was apparently passed for the advancement of
justice and no prejudice was to be caused to other side---Writ petition
dismissed.
(Paras 8, 10, 13, 14)
Ref. 2005 MLD 1776, 2009 CLC 269, 2004 MLD 635.

[If plaintiff fails to incorporate the name of any witness in the list of
witnesses appended with the plaint, then the Judge Family Court is
empowered to summon such witness. High Court dismissed writ petition].
Key Terms:- Resolution of matrimonial dispute through Arbitration.
[In instant case option for resolution of matrimonial disputes through

Arbitrators was given by respondent-husband/defendant. Award of
arbitration was made basis of judgment/decree. However, High Court while
remanding case held that Arbitration Act was inapplicable. Supreme Court
allowed civil appeal against impugned decree].
Mian Shoaib Akram Vs Judge, Family Court, etc. (2012 C.L.R. 1470)
(a) Interpretation of Statutes-----The Court would not act in a manner by which the object of a statute is
defeated and the same is rendered nugatory.
(Para 2)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 2005

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Section 380 -- Seized property - Return of - Acquittal in a theft case on
ground of benefit of doubt - Accused is not entitled to property as he never
claimed title to the same during trial - Property given to complainant who
identified the same in identification parade...........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 452, 457, 482 -- Theft - Recovery
of money - Acquittal of offence u/s 379 IPC - Accused not claiming money
as his own - Held, amount rightly refused to be returned to accused.
Having got the benefit of an acquittal on the ground that the prosecution
had not been able to establish his ownership of the goods, it was not open
to the accused to go back on hios plea and claim the goods as belonging to
him. 1959 Ker LJ 991: 1960 Cr LJ 909- AIR 1960 Ker 235.

West Pakistan Family Courts Act - Miscelaneous

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Pakistan Family Courts Act - Miscelaneous

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 698

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISLAM

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 1780

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 800

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Citation Name : 2012 YLR 2693

Side Appellant : HAMID ALI

prepared by the respondent who had appeared in the Trial Court as a

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1148

Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFEEZ

Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1049

Side Appellant : Mst. AYESHA SHAHEEN

ornaments weighing 17 tolas, and in case he was not in a position to

Side Appellant : Mst. AYESHA SHAHEEN

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 852

Side Appellant : SHAKIL MEHMOOD

Citation Name : 2014 MLD 1400

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN AHMED

Side Appellant : Mst. MARIUM HAYAT

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 105

Side Appellant : SAEED ALAM

Citation Name : 2015 MLD 1683

Side Appellant : ROBIN DAVID JOHN

Side Appellant : KHALID BASHIR

Petitioner/husband in his written statement had not categorically denied

Citation Name : 2015 CLC 632

Side Appellant : AMIR SHAHZAD

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 698

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISLAM

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 1780

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 800

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Citation Name : 2012 PLD 408

Side Appellant : Mst. RUQAYYA BIBI

Citation Name : 2012 YLR 2693

Side Appellant : HAMID ALI

Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1268

Side Appellant : Mst. SAHIB NOOR

Citation Name : 2011 MLD 373

Side Appellant : Rao ABID ALI

Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1135

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD FAROOQ

Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1141

Side Appellant : HUSSAIN BAKHSH

Citation Name : 2012 MLD 756

Side Appellant : Mst. SHAKEELA BIBI

Citation Name : 2011 CLC 1989

Side Appellant : Mst. MUSARRAT ANDLEEB

Citation Name : 2011 CLC 1989

Side Appellant : Mst. MUSARRAT ANDLEEB

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIPUR, DISTRICT

Mst. Naureen Vs Ehsan Sabir, Family Judge, Faisalabad and 2 others

[Conduct of petitioner and non-payment of dower was a lawful excuse for

Citation Name : 2012 CLC 347

Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD BASHIR

competent forum---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set

Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1361

Side Appellant : FARZANA RASOOL

Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1361

Side Appellant : FARZANA RASOOL

Citation Name : 2012 MLD 216

Side Appellant : Mst. TALAT SHAHEEN