Summary: The court carefully examined the record and noted that the lower courts' findings varied regarding the recovery of dowry articles and deferred dower. The Family Court decreed the respondent's (the wife's) suit for recovery of dowry articles but dismissed her claim for maintenance allowance and deferred dower. Subsequently, the District Judge modified the judgment and decreed the respondent's right to dowry articles and deferred dower in part, resulting in conflicting conclusions.The court observed that the wife's claim for maintenance allowance and recovery of deferred dower was not supported by cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence. Additionally, it noted that the wife's own statement in her examination-in-chief did not provide clarity on certain aspects of the case. The husband had sought restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his willingness to reconcile, but the wife had pursued divorce through Khula. This context led the court to uphold the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance allowance.Regarding deferred dower and dowry articles, the court found the wife's evidence insufficient to prove that the husband had taken these items from her. The husband's statement indicated that the wife had taken away a portion of her gold ornaments when she left the matrimonial home. As there was no compelling evidence that the husband possessed these items, the court upheld the Family Court's findings in this regard.However, concerning dowry articles, the court recognized that the wife was entitled to recover them or their equivalent value as specified in her list. The judgment concluded by partially allowing the writ petition, denying the wife's claim for dower, and granting her the right to recover dowry articles or their alternative value of Rs.3,00,000, without issuing any costs.

Summary: Background:The appeals in question were filed against the joint judgment of the Shariat Court dated October 22, 2015. The appellant, herein, had filed appeals against the dismissal of his suits and revisions pertaining to the abduction of his wife, Mst. Tahira Bibi, and subsequent legal proceedings. The marriage between the appellant and Mst. Tahira Bibi took place on September 15, 2011. On November 18, 2013, Mst. Tahira Bibi was abducted by Imran Khan Abbasi and his associates. Legal proceedings ensued, including a criminal case registered at the Police Station Garhi Dopatta and a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant.----Issues:Whether the consolidation of the criminal and civil matters by the Shariat Court for a joint judgment was legally justified.Whether the orders passed by the lower courts, particularly the Additional Tehsil Criminal Court, Muzaffarabad, were legally sound.Whether the marriage between Mst. Tahira Bibi and Imran Khan Abbasi, subsequent to her abduction, was legally valid in the absence of a divorce decree from the appellant.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Shariat Court justified the consolidation of the criminal and civil matters due to their interdependency to avoid conflicting judgments.The Shariat Court acknowledged the lack of reasoning in the orders passed by the Additional Tehsil Criminal Court and found them non-speaking orders. However, it deemed the judgment legally valid as it considered all aspects of the case.The appellant failed to provide evidence of divorce, and witnesses supported Mst. Tahira Bibi's claim of abduction. The Court upheld the validity of Mst. Tahira Bibi's marriage to Imran Khan Abbasi based on the evidence presented.

Summary: Background:The appellant filed a suit in the Family Court for dissolution of marriage and maintenance allowance. The respondent filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. After consolidation of the suits, the Family Court granted a decree of dissolution of marriage in favor of the appellant on the ground of khula, with the condition of returning the dower amount to the respondent. The appellant appealed to the Shariat Court, which partly accepted the appeal regarding maintenance allowance but upheld the dissolution of marriage. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the Shariat Court's decision.----Issues:Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.Whether the appellant's evidence sufficiently proves the ground of cruelty.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The appellant sought a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Court examined the evidence presented by the appellant, including witness testimonies and statements. The Court found that the evidence sufficiently proved the husband's cruel conduct, including physical violence, snatching of ornaments, and failure to provide maintenance allowance. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that cruelty, whether physical or mental, justifies the dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the Court accepted the appeal and passed a decree of dissolution of marriage in favor of the appellant on the ground of cruelty. No costs were awarded.

Summary: The background of the case involved Mst. Shaista Jabin filing two separate suits against Wahab Ahmad, one for maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights and another for recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated these suits and framed consolidated issues. During the proceedings, Mst. Shaista Jabin applied to include additional witnesses in the list, which the petitioner, Wahab Ahmad, opposed. The key legal issue revolved around whether the Family Court had the authority to permit the inclusion of witnesses not initially listed in the plaint. Section 7 of The Family Courts Act, 1964 was cited, which allows parties to call witnesses at a later stage with the court's permission if it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice. The court concluded that the provision in section 7 of The Family Courts Act, 1964 was not rigid and allowed for the inclusion of witnesses later on if it served the interests of justice. It distinguished this provision from the corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the Family Court's authority. The court also highlighted that the Family Courts Act aimed to provide a speedy mechanism for resolving family disputes and was exempt from certain procedural rigors, making it adaptable to the needs of the case. In the end, the court upheld the Family Court's order, stating that it was issued for the advancement of justice and did not prejudice either party. The writ petition was dismissed.

Summary: Background: A petitioner challenged the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the Federal Shariat Court. These provisions pertain to the enforcement of court decrees, specifically those involving specific performance, restitution of conjugal rights, or injunctions. The petitioner argued that these rules are contrary to Islamic principles, particularly in cases where enforcement leads to the attachment of property or detention of a party. The petitioner relied on Quranic verses and Hadith to assert that Islam upholds human dignity and provides clear guidelines for matrimonial relations. ----Issues: 1- Whether the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 32 and 33 of the CPC, which allow for the attachment of property or detention for enforcement of decrees, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to review the challenged provisions, considering they relate to Muslim Personal Law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition in limine, concluding that the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 32 and 33 of the CPC do not violate the Injunctions of Islam. The Court held that: --Sanctity of Court Decrees: The decrees of a competent court must be respected and enforced, as failing to do so would render the judicial process meaningless. The provisions in question are designed to ensure that decrees are effectively executed, which is consistent with Islamic principles. Jurisdictional Limits: The Court highlighted that its jurisdiction under Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution does not extend to matters of Muslim Personal Law. Since the rules in question pertain to Muslim Personal Law and are procedural in nature, they fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The petition was therefore dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, as well as on the merits of the argument concerning the consistency of the CPC provisions with Islamic principles. ----Citations/Precedents: Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 231: Cited by the petitioner but found to be related to divorce rather than the enforcement of court decrees. Hadith on Khula: Cited by the petitioner but determined to be related to divorce proceedings, not relevant to the enforcement of court decrees. Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan: Defines the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court, excluding matters pertaining to Muslim Personal Law.

Summary: The judgment granted maintenance allowance and gold ornaments to respondent No. 3 based on clauses in the Nikah Nama (marriage contract). The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for maintenance allowance and implementation of clauses in the Nikah Nama. Both suits were consolidated, and after examining the evidence, the court granted maintenance allowance and rejected the claim for gold ornaments and a monetary amount. The court examined the evidence and found that respondent No. 3 had admitted to the petitioner taking back some gold ornaments, but it was not proven that any other ornaments were snatched away. The court also ruled that the conditions imposed in clauses 17 and 20 of the Nikah Nama were not applicable, and the maintenance allowance to the wife was legitimate as long as she carries the husband's name. The court allowed the writ petition partly, setting aside the conditions imposed in clauses 17 and 20 of the Nikah Nama, but maintained the maintenance allowance granted to respondent No. 3. The court upheld the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the validity of judgments and decrees issued by the Family Court and the Additional District Judge. The background of the case involved the petitioner filing a composite suit for maintenance, dowry articles, and dower, while respondent No. 3 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court issued a judgment and decree which granted maintenance to the petitioner but dismissed her claims for gold ornaments, buffaloes, cows, and dower. The petitioner appealed the decision to the higher court (respondent No. 1) but was unsuccessful, leading to the current writ petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that both lower courts erred in law by not awarding the dower amount despite the husband's second marriage without the first wife's permission. They cited section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which states that a husband must immediately pay the entire amount of dower to the first wife in such cases. After examining the evidence and relevant legal provisions, the High Court judge concluded that the lower courts indeed overlooked the requirement to pay dower upon the husband's second marriage without permission. The court partially accepted the petition, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts concerning the dower amount and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration on this specific issue within two months. The judgments of the lower courts on other matters were upheld.

Summary: P L J 1984 Peshawar 1 [D.B.] Present: Abdul Hakim Khan Kundi and Allah Bakhsh, JJ. Muslim Sher - Petitioner versus Mst. Udrat Bibi and Another (Respondents) Writ Petition No. 673/80, decided on 20-12-1983 ----- (i) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2(iv) read with Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5—Marriage—Dissolution of—Marital obligations—Failure to perform—Effect of Held: The husband deposited part of the maintenance arrears in court before the completion of three years but subsequent to the institution of a suit for dissolution of marriage. The wife was deemed to have failed to prove the issue of non-performance of marital obligations by the husband for the requisite period. [Page 4] ----- (ii) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2(ix) read with Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5—Marriage—Dissolution of Khula—Ground of Held: Khula is recognized as a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage under Muslim Law. The judge should dissolve the marriage on such a ground upon partial or total restoration of benefits received by the wife as consideration for the marriage. [Page 4] ----- (iii) Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5 read with Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2 and Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Article 199—Dissolution of Marriage—Decree for—Challenge to in writ jurisdiction Held: If a decree for dissolution of marriage is maintainable on any other ground, it is not to be assailable in writ jurisdiction simply because of the failure of the Judge Family Court to determine the benefits received by the wife as consideration for the marriage and to order partial or total restoration thereof. [Page 4] ----- (iv) Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Article 199—See Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5 ----- (v) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2—See Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5 ----- (vi) Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5—See Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2 ------Background: The case involves a dispute between a husband and wife regarding the dissolution of marriage and related claims. The husband initially filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the wife filed a counter-suit for maintenance and other entitlements, including dower and a share in property. The trial court consolidated the cases, granting maintenance and partial dower to the wife. Later, the wife filed a separate suit for the dissolution of marriage based on multiple grounds, including non-maintenance, cruelty, and khula. The husband contested this, arguing that the wife was estopped from raising these grounds due to a prior judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court erred in dissolving the marriage on the ground of khula without determining the restoration of benefits received by the wife. -----2- Whether the decree of dissolution based on non-maintenance was maintainable despite the husband's attempts to fulfill his financial obligations. -----3- Whether the principles of estoppel and res judicata applied to bar the wife from raising the issue of cruelty after the earlier decision in the restitution of conjugal rights suit. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Khula as a Ground for Dissolution: The court held that khula is a recognized and valid ground for the dissolution of marriage under Muslim Law. A Family Court judge has the authority to dissolve a marriage on this ground upon the partial or total restoration of benefits received by the wife. However, the court noted that the Family Court did not address the issue of restoring the benefits, which raised procedural concerns. --Non-Maintenance as a Ground: The court affirmed that non-maintenance for two years is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Despite the husband’s partial fulfillment of maintenance obligations, he failed to sustain regular maintenance over the statutory period. The court upheld the dissolution of marriage on this basis, making the decree unassailable in writ jurisdiction. --Estoppel and Res Judicata: The court rejected the husband's plea of estoppel and res judicata, stating that the wife could pursue claims of cruelty if subsequent incidents occurred after the previous judgment. The court found no compelling evidence that the wife had exhausted her claim to cruelty in the earlier restitution proceedings. --Maintainability of the Decree: Referring to established precedents, the court held that as long as the decree for dissolution of marriage is valid on any one ground—such as non-maintenance—it remains beyond the scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction. The alleged errors in determining benefits related to khula do not undermine the overall decree if other grounds are proven. -----Citations/Precedents: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Section 2: Recognizes non-maintenance as a valid ground for dissolution. Family Courts Act (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964), Section 5: Jurisdiction of Family Courts in marriage disputes. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199: Limits the scope of judicial review. Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and Others (PLJ 1974 SC 60): Established that errors in judgment by courts with competent jurisdiction do not justify judicial review. NLR 1982 AC 623: Affirmed that dissolution based on one valid ground remains intact despite potential procedural flaws in handling other grounds. The court dismissed the husband's writ petition, leaving the dissolution decree intact, and imposed no order as to costs.

Summary: The petitioner, Nasir Sharif, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife (Respondent No. 1), Sabeela Imtiaz, who left his residence on September 24, 2022. In her written statement, the respondent resisted the suit and also claimed maintenance. On November 28, 2023, the Family Court fixed an interim maintenance amount of PKR 12,000 per month for the respondent. The petitioner challenged this interim order, arguing that the wife cannot claim maintenance in response to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9(1b) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The petitioner’s writ petition raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Section 9(1b) of the Family Courts Act. The case was referred to a larger bench due to its legal significance. -------- Issues: --------1) Can a wife claim maintenance in response to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9(1b) of the Family Courts Act, 1964? -------- 2) Did the Family Court err by fixing interim maintenance without allowing the petitioner to file a rejoinder? -------- 3) What is the scope of Section 9(1b) regarding claims raised by a wife in a written statement? -------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, set aside the interim maintenance order dated November 28, 2023, and directed the Family Court to allow the petitioner to file a rejoinder before deciding on the maintenance claim. Reasoning: -------- Scope of Section 9(1b): The court interpreted Section 9(1b) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, emphasizing that the term "including khula" broadens the scope of claims a wife can raise in her written statement. A wife may claim maintenance, dissolution of marriage, or other permissible reliefs under the Act while resisting a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. -------- Procedural Fairness: The Family Court fixed the interim maintenance amount without giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the respondent’s claim for maintenance. This violated the principles of procedural fairness and negated Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, which emphasizes fair trial procedures. Family Courts Act Objectives: The Act aims to provide a speedy, simplified process for resolving family disputes. However, procedural technicalities must still ensure fairness. Allowing the petitioner to file a rejoinder aligns with these principles. -------- Interim Relief: Although courts exercise restraint in interfering with interim orders, the High Court found it necessary to intervene due to the procedural irregularity in fixing interim maintenance without hearing the petitioner. -------- Outcome: The writ petition was allowed, and the Family Court’s order fixing interim maintenance was set aside. The Family Court was directed to permit the petitioner to file a rejoinder to the claim of maintenance and decide the interim maintenance thereafter, in accordance with the law. -------- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Yasmeen Bibi v. Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan (PLD 2016 SC 613): Discussed the objective of the Family Courts Act to ensure expedited resolution of family disputes. Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Mst. Sayeda Sabahat Batool (2010 SCMR 1840): Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction, and procedural fairness must be maintained. Major Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Mst. Saadia Yaqub (PLD 2012 SC 66): Custody and maintenance claims fall under the jurisdiction of Family Courts, ensuring expeditious and fair disposal. Akhtar Kamal v. Mst. Samreen Akhtar (2018 CLC 887): The word “including” in Section 9(1b) broadens the scope of claims a wife can raise in response to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Sheheryar Gul v. Mst. Sadaf Bibi (2016 MLD 200): Written statements in family suits can include claims for ancillary reliefs, such as maintenance.