Summary: Pleadings------Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, R. 4--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. VI Rr. 14 & 15--Particulars of plaint--Production ofdocuments--Non signing and verification--Suit for dissolution of marriage and maintenanceallowance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Challenge to--Any omission in the signing andverification of the pleadings and presentation of the plaint is rectifiable at a subsequent stage--A plaint cannot be rejected or a suit cannot be dismissed for any of the irregularities inperforming above said act. [P. 46] A2006 MLD 1752, PLD SC 491, ref.Cruelty------Define--Cruelty is not limited to physical beating rather can be either mental or even byconduct. [P. 48] BMaintenance------Muhammadan Law--Para 320--Muslim Family Act, 1964--S. 7 & 9--Divorce By Kula orMubaraat-Iddat--Maintenance allowance--Liability of husband--Validity--A divorce effectedby Khula or Mubara?at operates as a release by the wife of a dower but it does not effect theliability of the husband to maintain the wife during her iddat. [P. 48] C1999 CLC 160, 1988 CLC 2355, 1988 MLD 427, ref.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Suit for maintenance and recovery of dowry articles--Partially decreed--Appeals--Dismissed--Producing of original divorce deed--Entitlement for recovery ofmaintenance allowance to extent of iddat period and recovery of dowry articles exceptarticles mentioned at serial No. 47, 48, 49 of list or alternate price--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--In constitution petition, no convincing arguments were advanced by counselfor Petitioner to convince this Court that both Courts below have committed any illegalitywhile fixing maintenance: allowance according to financial status of petitioners andassessing price of dowry articles--Both Courts below have passed impugned judgmentsand decrees after fully appreciating evidence on record, which this Court has alsoexamined--When a factual controversy had been settled by two Courts below unless anduntil there were compelling reasons shown for mis-reading and noní reading of evidencein order passed by Courts below, was without jurisdiction or there was a visibleirregularity while deciding same, High Court might interfere--No illegality or irregularityhad been pointed out in concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below andimpugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any legal discrepancy or infirmity--Petition was dismissed

Summary: Islamic Law-------Maintenance for wife---Principles---Wife had left the house of husband---For entitlement ofmaintenance, wife was bound to establish that she was turned out of the house by the husband---If wife succeeded to prove the same, she would be entitled for the maintenance---Wife had failedto establish that husband turned her out of his house or even maltreated her---Appellate Courthad rightly held that wife had failed to establish that she left the house of her husband due to hiscruel conduct to make her entitled for the maintenance---Benefit arising of the principles ofmaintenance to wife, could not be extended to her---Appellate Court had rightly allowedmaintenance to the wife only for the Iddat period at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month---No errorhad been committed by the Appellate Court to be corrected---Constitutional petition wasdismissed in circumstances.

Summary: "(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-------S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13-Administration suit- Talaq-e-Bain- Effect--- Contention of plaintiff was that she being wife of deceased was entitled for deferred dower as well as share from his property whereas defendants contended that plaintiff had been divorced by the deceased and she was not legal heir to claim inheritance-Validity-Plaintiff was given Talaq-e-Bain and no question of reconciliation would arise---Such Talaq would become effective the moment same was pronounced-Plaintiff was not entitled for any inheritance however claim of dower amount was debt on the property of deceased which was to be paid first.(b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)---S. 7---Divorce--- Effectiveness of--- Scope---Marriage could abe dissolved by husband at his will without intervention of the court-Man who wished to divorce his wife should as soon as might be after pronouncement of Talaq give the Chairman Union Council a notice in writing of his having done so and should supply a copy thereof to the wife---Talaq would not be effective until the expiry of 90 days unless same was revoked earlier expressly or otherwise.(c) Islamic Law------Talaq, Mubarat and Khula-Meaning-- -""Talaq"" was divorce which was pronounced by the husband whereas ""Mubarat"" was Talaq effected by mutual consent of parties and ""Khula"" was dissolution of marriage through court.(d) Islamic Law------Talaq, kinds of-Scope-Talaq would be of three kinds i.e. Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hassan and Talaq-e-Bain-Talaq-e-Ahsan could be pronounced by single pronouncement during ""Tuhrs"" followed by abstinence from going to wife to establish marital relationship till Iddat period-Talaq-e-Hassan was pronounce-ment of divorce through successive three ""Tuhrs"" without establishing physical relationship with wife in any of the three ""Tuhrs""---Talaq-e-Bain was the divorce by husband through pronouncement made through single ""Tuhr"" either in one sentence or in separate sentences---Talaq-e-Bain was irrevocable divorce whereas Talaq-e-Ahsan would become irrevocable on expiry of Iddat period and Talaq-e-Hassan on third pronouncement irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain would become irrevocable immediately on pronouncement of the same either uttered orally or written down on a piece of paper irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain did not provide any room for any reconciliation-Communication was not material ingredients or prerequisite for validity of Talaq."

Summary: (1) Muhammadan Iaw.??????Marriage contracted during period of Iddat is invalid.A marriage contracted during the period of `Iddat' is not merely an irregular marriage,it has been termed by the Muslim Jurists as Batil (void). Even if is held to be irregular,it is still an invalid marriage, for both the irregular (Fasid) and void (Batil) marriagesfall in the category of `invalid marriage'.Ibn Abidin Raddul Muhtar, Vol. 2, p.482 and Ibn Ibidin, Vol. 2, p:835. ref.(m) Muhammadan Law????? Remarriage of a woman???Period of Iddat is 39 days. --- (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)???????S. 7???Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.2?A???Divorce would become effectiveeven in the absence of notice to the Chairman under S.7?? Ineffectiveness of divorce inthe absence of a notice to the Chairman, as envisaged by S.7, Muslim Family LawsOrdinance, 1961, was against injunctions of Islam.Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others P L D 1988 Kar. 169 approved.Muhammad Sarwar and Mst. Shahida Parveen v. The State P L D 1988 FSC 42 ref.(b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????S. 4???Zina???Definition???Intercourse in the case of a valid marriage cannot bedeemed to be Zina.(c) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????S. 4???`Valid marriage'???Meaning???If a marriage is valid in Shariah, it shall be heldvalid for the purposes of the Ordinance even though. it is not recognized as valid in anyother law for the time being in force.As the term of `valid marriage' has not been defined in the Ordinance, 1 the same shallbe construed in the light of the Islamic Injunctions keeping?in View the intention of thelaw?maker as emerges from the title and the preamble of the Ordinance.Both the title and the preamble of the Ordinance have disclosed the real intention of thelaw maker who wants to `modify' the law as it existed so as to bring it `in conformitywith the Injunctions of Islam'. All the provisions of the Ordinance, therefore, should beread and interpreted in the light of this title and preamble and terms not defined in theOrdinance itself, must be construed and interpreted in accordance with the `Injunctionsof Islam as set out in the Holy Qura'n and Sunnah'. The words `validly married'occurring in the definition of `Zina' in section 4 of the Ordinance have not been definedin the Ordinance. The definition, therefore, will be sought from the Injunctions ofIslam because the Ordinance intends to bring the existing law relating to Zina inconformity with them.Moreover, section 3 of the Ordinance has given the provisions of the Ordinance anoverriding effect on `any other law for the time being in force'.The logical result of this scheme of the provisions of the Ordinance is that if there is aclash between an existing law and the Injunctions of Islam with regard to the validityof a marriage, the Injunctions of Islam shall prevail for the purpose of this Ordinance.Thus, if a marriage is valid in Shariah, it shall be held valid for the purpose of thisOrdinance, even though it is not recognised as valid in any other law for the time beingin force.(d) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????Preamble???All the provisions of the Ordinance have to be read and interpreted inthe light of the title and preamble which are not defined in the' Ordinanceitself???Ordinance must be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Injunctionsof Islam as set out in the Holy Qura'n and Sunnah.(e) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????S. 4???`Zina'???Definition???Word `Zinc' having not been defined in the Ordinancethe definition of the word was to be sought from the Injunctions of Islam.(f) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????S. 4???Validity of marriage???Where there is clash between an existing law and theInjunctions of Islam with regard to the validity of marriage, the Injunctions of theIslam shall prevail for the purpose of the Ordinance.(g) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)?????S. 4???Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.7???Allegation ofZina???Plea of valid marriage by accused???Provision of S.7, Muslim Family LawsOrdinance, cannot affect the validity of a marriage contracted according to Shariah atleast to the extent of the criminal liability envisaged in the Ordinance.Mirza Qamar Raja v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others P L D 1988 Kar. 169 approved.(h) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1061)???????S. 7???Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),S.4???Marriage contracted according to Shariah???Provisions of S.7, Muslim FamilyLaws Ordinance, 1965 could not affect the validity of such marriage at least to theextent of the criminal liability envisaged in the Offence of Zina (Enforcement ofHudood) Ordinance, 1979.Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others P L D 1988 Kar. 169 approved.(i) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)???????S. 7???Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),S.4???Allegation of Zina???Plea of valid marriage by accused???If a woman after,obtaining a divorce from the husband (pronounced or written by husband) and after thenecessary period of Iddat contracts a marriage with a third person such marriage couldnot be held as invalid marriage just because a notice of Talaq to the Chairman underS.7, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1965 had not been given by husband???Notice ofTalaq to the Chairman was not mandatory under the Injunctions of Islam and anydivorce pronounced or written by a husband could not be ineffective or invalid inShariah merely because its notice had not been given to the Chairman.Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others P L D 1988 Kar. 169 approved.(j) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)???????S. 7???Notice of Talaq to the Chairman is not mandatory under the Injunctions ofIslam and any divorce pronounced or written by a husband cannot be ineffective orinvalid in Shariah because its notice had not been given to the Chairman ???If a womanafter obtaining such a divorce from her husband and after the necessary period of Iddatcontracts a marriage with a third person, their marriage could not be held as invalidmarriage.Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others P L D 1988 Kar. 169 approved.(k) Offence of?Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)???????S. 4???Offence of Zina cannot be made out against a man and woman unless they`wilfully' have sexual intercourse???If a man and a woman had good reasons to believebona fide that they were husband and wife, the commission of intercourse under suchbelief could not be held as `wilful commission of Zina'.Mst. Bashiran and another v. Muhammad Hussain and another P L D 1988 S C 186 ref.

Summary: (a) Family Law—Maintenance of Minor Quantum of maintenance—Reduction due to change in financial circumstances of father—Balance between needs of minor and financial capacity of father In cases involving maintenance of minors, the court emphasized that the quantum of maintenance must be determined by balancing the financial capacity of the father with the needs of the minor. Courts must consider changes in financial circumstances, whether positive or adverse, and ensure maintenance is neither oppressive nor financially penalizing. Evidence-based determination, including salary slips, bank statements, and other documentary proof, is crucial. The court held that denying admissibility of new evidence based on embassy attestation without addressing its relevance or validity was improper. ------ Cited Cases: Humayun Hassan v. Arsalan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557) Tauqeer Ahmad Quershi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760) Muhammad Touseeq Danial Bhatti v. Ayesha Naeem (2021 MLD 337) ------ (b) Family Law—Depreciation of Dowry Articles Depreciation during pendency of suit—Liability of husband to return dowry without depreciation The court held that depreciation in the value of dowry articles during the pendency of a suit cannot be imposed on the wife if the husband failed to admit ownership and delayed the matter. Courts are obligated to place the parties in the position they would have been in had the claim been resolved promptly. ------ Cited Cases: Muhammad Akbar v. Additional District Judge (2019 CLC Note 32) M. Saleem Ahmed Siddiqui v. Sabira Begum (2001 YLR 2329) ------ (c) Family Law—Maintenance of Wife During Iddat Period Reasonableness of maintenance quantum—Concurrent findings of courts below The maintenance awarded to the wife during her iddat period (Rs. 15,000 per month) was deemed reasonable. The court found no misreading of evidence by the lower courts and upheld the findings. ------ (d) Procedure—Admissibility of Additional Evidence in Appeal Relaxation of procedural requirements in family matters—Liberal approach to determine financial resources The appellate court’s refusal to allow additional evidence on procedural grounds was criticized. The court emphasized that family courts must adopt a liberal approach in admitting evidence to ensure accurate determination of financial resources. Section 17-A(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, permits courts to summon additional evidence to assess the financial status of the father. ------ Cited Cases: Muhammad Kashif v. Additional District Judge (2022 MLD 1995) Saeed Baig v. Kishwar Sultana (2002 MLD 57) ------ (e) Islamic Law—Nafqah (Maintenance) Obligation of father to provide maintenance according to his means—Recognition of financial limits The Quranic injunctions in Surah Al-Baqra and Surah Al-Talaq highlight that fathers are obliged to maintain their children honorably within their financial means. Courts must ensure maintenance reflects these principles, balancing the father's capacity and the child’s needs. Cited Religious Authority: ------ Quran: Surah Al-Baqra (2:233), Surah Al-Talaq (65:7) ------ Disposition The petitions were partially accepted. The findings on maintenance of the minor and alternate value of dowry articles were set aside and remanded to the appellate court for fresh decision within two months. Findings regarding maintenance during iddat period and claim to gold ornaments were upheld.

Summary: The petitioner although deposed that receipts of dowry articles were fake but his witnesses deposed that said articles were brought on a pickup. Suit rightly decreed. ----- (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 ---Section 10(5)—Maintenance for iddat and minor’s welfare—Quantum and financial capacity** The Family Court decreed maintenance for the plaintiff/respondent No.3 (wife) for the iddat period only at Rs.4000/- per month and for respondent No.4 (minor) at Rs.5000/- per month with a 10% annual increase. The appellate court upheld this, considering the welfare of the minor and rejecting the petitioner’s claim of financial incapacity, finding the maintenance allowance reasonable in light of current living costs. (b) Delivery and medical treatment expenses ---Evidentiary support for treatment costs** The appellate court awarded Rs.20,000/- for delivery and medical treatment expenses of the minor, based on evidence, including prescriptions and hospital records. The claim was upheld as it reflected reasonable expenses even for a normal delivery and subsequent treatment. (c) Dowry articles—Customary practices and alternate compensation ---Assessment of evidence and custom of providing dowry** The Family Court declined the respondent’s claim for gold ornaments but awarded Rs.90,000/- as the alternate price for dowry articles, which the appellate court enhanced to Rs.150,000/-. This was based on evidence, including testimony affirming the provision of dowry in Rajput families, the marriage duration, and the wear and tear factor. The appellate court’s findings were upheld as reasonable and grounded in evidence. (d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Scope of interference ---Findings of Family Court and appellate court—Bar on reappraisal of evidence** The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the Family Court and the appellate court, emphasizing that reappraisal of evidence in constitutional jurisdiction is not permissible unless misreading, non-reading, or illegality is established. No such defect was found in the impugned judgments. Cited Cases: No specific cases were cited in the judgment. ------ Disposition: The writ petition was dismissed in limine for lack of merit. The concurrent findings of the Family Court and appellate court regarding maintenance, delivery expenses, and alternate compensation for dowry articles were upheld as free from misreading, non-reading, or illegality.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ----S. 10(5)----Maintenance allowance for ‘Iddat’ period----Entitlement and sufficiency----Assessment of financial capacity of husband. In a suit for dissolution of marriage decreed under Section 10(5) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Family Court awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the ‘Iddat’ period. The petitioner contended financial incapacity, whereas the respondent asserted higher income. The court upheld the award, observing that the maintenance amount was reasonable, not exceeding the petitioner’s financial means, and aligned with the respondent's basic needs during the period of ‘Iddat’. (b) Maintenance of Minor Child ----Welfare principle----Financial capacity of father----10% annual increase in maintenance allowance. The minor child was awarded maintenance allowance at Rs. 5,000/- per month with a 10% annual increase, considering the petitioner’s financial standing and the welfare principle. The petitioner’s income was disputed, but the court observed that the awarded amount was reasonable, not exceeding the petitioner’s financial means, and sufficient to meet the minor’s basic needs. (c) Medical Treatment and Delivery Expenses ----Entitlement to delivery and medical expenses of minor----Evidence of treatment and expenses incurred. The respondent claimed delivery and medical expenses for the minor child, which were partially accepted by the appellate court at Rs. 10,000/- each (total Rs. 20,000/-). Evidence, including medical prescriptions, supported the claim. The court observed that even normal deliveries incur expenses and upheld the award for medical and delivery costs as reasonable. (d) Dowry Articles ----Customary practice in Rajput families----Alternate price assessment----Evidence and wear-and-tear factor. The respondent claimed dowry articles worth Rs. 5,11,650/-. The appellate court, considering the short duration of the marriage (2 years), customary Rajput practices, evidence on record, and the wear-and-tear factor, awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as an alternate price of dowry articles. The petitioner’s claim of fake receipts was dismissed based on credible testimonies. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court ----Scope of reappraisal of evidence----Misreading or non-reading of evidence----Illegality. The High Court observed that constitutional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence unless misreading, non-reading, or illegality is established. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error in the judgments of the lower courts. Therefore, the findings were upheld, and the constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine. Cited Laws: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 10(5).

Summary: [Family matter (CP dismissed with Cost . Maintenance of minor and her mother till iddat Period is Maintained. )] Family Matter. Filing of a Constitutional petition under Article 199 against concurrent findings of family court and Appellate Court. Not a matter of right and cannot be heard and decided as an appeal as in that case it would make such jurisdiction indistinguishable from the Appellate Court's jurisdiction which is not the intention of the Constitution makers.