Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss.5, Sched. & 14---Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), S.2---Suit fordissolution of marriage---Appeal---Scope---Suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed bythe Trial Court---Appeal filed against the decree was dismissed---Validity---Appeal againstthe marriage dissolved by Family Court on any ground, except the one mentioned inS.2(viii)(d) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, was not competent in view ofS.14 of Family Courts Act, 1964---Statements of witnesses of defendant proved that therewas maltreatment both physically and mentally from the defendant's side that was why hegave surety that next time there would be no beatings---Defendant had failed to maintain theplaintiff for more than four years, who was residing with her parents---"Cruelty" was notlimited to physical beating rather it could be either mental or even by conduct---Petition waspartly accepted and the impugned order of appellate court to the extent of return of appeal inrespect of dower amount, maintenance, gold ornaments and medical expenses was set aside.(b) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)-------S.2---Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage---Scope---Cruelty is not limited tophysical beating rather that can be either mental or even by conduct.(c) Interpretation of statutes-------Proviso---Provision of proviso is to be strictly construed.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Ms. Gulalay, a student of M.Phil, was shot dead inside her home during a family function on 2.2.2019.Ashfaq Ahmed Khan accused the petitioner, Muhammad Uzair Jamal, of the crime, alleging that Jamal aspired to marry the deceased, who was already engaged.The petitioner was subdued by attendants and produced before the police with the weapon.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's claimed mental incapacity warrants suspension of the trial.Whether the trial court and the high court were correct in declining the petitioner's motion based on mental incapacity.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court observed that while the trial court is responsible for determining the petitioner's innocence or guilt based on evidence, the petitioner's claimed mental incapacity is examined for the purpose of his plea.The available evidence suggests a deliberate and meticulously planned murder of the victim.The petitioner's diagnosed "Depressive Illness" is considered a natural consequence of the crime rather than a justification for suspension of trial.The petitioner did not plead unsound mind initially and failed to provide clear evidence to support his claim of mental incapacity.The court upheld the decisions of the trial court and the high court, stating that the petitioner's plea did not meet the legal standards for suspension of trial.The outcome of the trial would be determined solely based on evidence and due process of law.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Precedents:The court cited Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, regarding the defense of unsoundness of mind, and relevant provisions for the examination of mental incapacity during trial.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The argument revolved around whether this levy qualifies as a tax or a fee, its legislative competence, and its compliance with constitutional provisions. The text highlights various legal principles related to taxation, including the distinction between tax and fee, the broad powers of the legislature in taxation matters, and the need for a dynamic and pragmatic judicial approach. Ultimately, the court rules that the Super Tax is a legitimate tax, imposed for public purposes, and is within the constitutional framework, dismissing claims of double taxation and discrimination. The judgment also includes a reflection on the broader issues of taxation in the country, emphasizing the importance of a fair and balanced approach to tax policies.

Summary: Background:In Criminal Petition No. 549 of 2020, Babar Nadeem filed an appeal against the order dated 5th June 2020 issued by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 19465-B/2020. The case stemmed from the murder of Manzoor Ahmed by unidentified assailants on 17th February 2020 in his house located within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan. The assailants were later identified as Muhammad Din, Muhammad Latif, and Tanvir Hussain, who were arrested under section 54 on 29th February 2020. During the investigation, it was alleged that Babar Nadeem, along with two others, was involved as abettors in the crime.---Issues:Whether there was sufficient legal evidence to justify denying judicial protection to the petitioner?What is the implication of the omission of abettors' names from the crime report despite being identified by witnesses?Does the exoneration of one alleged abettor create a conflict with the conspiracy hypothesis?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court refrained from commenting on the absence of abettors' names in the crime report but held that this omission alone implicated the petitioner under subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Despite the exoneration of one alleged abettor, the court found space to contemplate considerations for arrest other than being noble. The petition was converted into an appeal, and the ad interim bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed upon the petitioner furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.---Citations/Precedents:Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subsection 2 of section 497

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending