Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. A Family Court is bound to focus on settlement rather than adjudication .2. A Family Court clothed with parental jurisdiction has a duty to explainto the parties the importance of parting ways pursuant to dissolution ofmarriage in a pleasant manner and avoid agony to each other asdirected by the Holy Qur an in verses # 229 and 231 of Surah Al-Baqarah.

Summary: (Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973)Suit for dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, dowry and gold ornaments etc. Ex parte decree was maintained by the appeal Court.Held: (i) Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is applicable to an application by a defendant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte and the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days starts running from the date of the decree, where the summons is not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree, the application filed by the petitioner is well within time.(ii) Period of limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree under the Family Court Act, 1964, shall be reckoned from the date of receiving notice in accordance with Section 9(7) of the said Act.(iii) In view of Section 9(7) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, it is imperative upon Family Court to send notice to defendant about an ex parte decree passed against him, onus was shifted to the petitioner/defendant to prove that copy of ex parte decree has been sent to him, which he successfully discharged by producing sufficient evidence.(Petition was allowed, impugned orders were set aside, consequently application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2019 was allowed and case was remanded to the learned Family Court with the direction to decide the suit on merits within period of four months expeditiously).

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. Judge Family Court can dissolve the marriage of the wife soonafter failure of the pre-trial reconciliation and could leave theother controversies to the final judgment which is to be recordedafter recording of pro and contra evidence.2. A Judge Family Court would not be debarred to initially dissolvethe marriage on the basis of Khula as per proviso of Section 10(4)of The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ( Act ) and lateron hold that the marriage is to be treated and dissolved on thebasis of cruelty.3. Proviso to subsection 4 of Section 10 of the Act is beneficiallegislation for the wife to have a shortcut for dissolution of hermarriage leaving aside other controversies for the full-fledgedtrial between the parties.4. A wife would be entitled to seek Khula at the initial stage of theproceedings and could prove in her evidence the cruelty, non-payment of dower and other rights attached to the matrimoniallife.5. High Court can interfere in the findings passed by the JudgeFamily Court/special Tribunal/special Court only if its order iseither without jurisdiction or the result of excess of jurisdiction orimproper exercise of jurisdiction, otherwise not.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution(a) How impotency of the husband has to be determined when such allegations are leveled by the wife.(b) What does The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and Islamic Fiqh says about the determination of impotency of a husband.(c) Sending husband to the Standing Medical Board for determination of his impotency is disapproved as the said procedure is totally alien to law of the land.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit seeking the recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, dowry articles, and dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The respondent, the petitioner’s husband, contested the suit. The trial court granted a decree in favor of the petitioner for dower, maintenance allowance, dowry articles, and dissolved the marriage on the basis of non-payment of maintenance. The respondent's appeal partially reduced the maintenance period. Both parties filed writ petitions challenging the judgments. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance allowance and, if so, for how long? 2- Whether the marriage could be dissolved under Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 due to non-payment of maintenance for two years? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintenance Allowance Entitlement and Period: The court held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance as per Muslim law, which requires a husband to provide for his wife’s basic needs, including food, clothing, and shelter. The petitioner failed to prove that he paid maintenance. The court cited various precedents affirming that the limitation period for claiming past maintenance is six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Thus, the trial court's decree for maintenance for the past 19 years was rightly modified to six years by the appellate court. --Dissolution of Marriage: The court found that non-payment of maintenance for two years constitutes a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The respondent was not maintained for 19 years, fulfilling the requirement of an unbroken period of non-maintenance. The argument that the petitioner and respondent resided together for a short period in 2016 did not negate the overall neglect. The writ petitions challenging the judgments were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif Khan Vs Mst: Umar Dara and 03 others (PLD 2021 Peshawar 184) Wasim Nawaz & 02 others Vs. Mariam Bibi and 02 others (W.P. No. 446-B/2019, decided on 28.04.2021) Sher Zaman Vs Mst. Mah Zari (2018 YLR 128) Muhammad Nawaz Vs MsL Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302) Anjum Vs. Ahmad (1992 CLC) Bushra Qassim Vs Abdil (1993 CLC 2063) MsLAnar Mamana Vs Misal Guf (PLD 2005 Peshawar 194) Farkhanda Mumtaz Vs Mu (PLD 2006 Peshawar 96) MsL Farah Naz Vs Judge Family Court, Sahiwal (PLD 2006 SC 457) Baghdad Ahmad Vs MsL Shamshad Begum & 03 others (2007 CLC 555) MsL Zaibun Vs Mehrban (PLD 2004 SC AJK 20) Baghdad Ahmad Khan Vs Additional District (2011 MLD 1014)

Summary: Background: The appellant filed four suits against the respondents in the Family Court, Muzaffarabad: For payment of dower of Rs. 4,25,525/-. For past and future maintenance allowance at Rs. 12,000/- per month. For dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, non-performance of marital obligations, non-payment of dower, and maintenance allowance. For recovery of dowry articles or their value, Rs. 1,53,300/-. The respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court consolidated all suits and ruled in favor of the appellant. The respondents appealed to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which modified the Family Court's decrees, granting maintenance allowance only for the Iddat period, dissolving the marriage in lieu of Khula for Rs. 100,000/-, and modifying the decree for dowry articles. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dissolution of marriage should be based on cruelty or Khula. 2- Whether the appellant is entitled to past and future maintenance allowance. 3- Whether the dowry articles decree was correctly issued. 4- Whether the deferred dower of Rs. 3,25,525/- should be upheld. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dissolution of Marriage: The Supreme Court held that the dissolution of marriage was rightly decreed by the Family Court on grounds of cruelty. The High Court's modification to Khula in lieu of Rs. 100,000/- was set aside. Evidence showed the appellant faced cruelty, including mental torture and harassment by the respondent's brother-in-law, which justified the dissolution on cruelty grounds. --Maintenance Allowance: The Supreme Court restored the Family Court's decree of Rs. 2,000/- per month maintenance from the date of the suit until the decision date, including the Iddat period. The appellant proved she was ousted from the respondent’s house and was not maintained. --Dowry Articles: The Supreme Court reinstated the Family Court’s decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The High Court's modification was found unjustified as the appellant proved the dowry articles were given at marriage and were in the respondent's possession. --Deferred Dower: The Supreme Court upheld the Family Court's decision that the appellant was entitled to the deferred dower of Rs. 3,25,525/- as per the marriage contract. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Zaheer-ud-Din Babar vs. Mst. Shazia Kausar & others [2015 SCR 621] Mst. Amreen vs. M. Kabir & others [2014 SCR 504] Mst. Iqra vs. Abuzar [2012 SCR 284] Muhammad Sabil Khan and another vs. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Nazish Shabir vs. Basit Ibal Khan & another [2015 SCR 400] Khalid Mahmood vs. Parveen Akhtar & another [2015 SCR 512] Muhammad Rafique vs. Mst. Gul Taj [2006 SCR 260] Syed Iqbal Shah vs. Syeda Tahira Bibi & others [2019 SCR 295]

Summary: Mother amongst all persons is the best person entitled to the custody of her minor children during the connubial relationship as well as after its dissolution and this right belongs to the mother which cannot be taken from her except her own misconduct.

Summary: The petitioner in this case has challenged the order issued by the learned Judge Family Court, Gujranwala, and the judgment issued by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. The petitioner was married to respondent No.3 on 31.12.2005, with a dower of 32.25 tola gold ornaments, which was later taken back by respondent No.3. Additionally, the petitioner received dowry articles worth Rs.13,91,000 from her parents. Due to conflicts between the parties, the petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, dowry articles, and maintenance. The Family Court decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula under Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. However, the petitioner contested that the grounds for dissolution, namely failure to pay maintenance and cruel behavior, fall under Section 2(ii) and (viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, which does not allow dissolution based on Khula. Legal precedents cited include the case of Sardar Abid Iqbal vs. Tabassam Khursheed (2009 YLR 1745) and Mst. Saima Irum vs. Tariq Javed (2005 S.L.R. 655), emphasizing that the court cannot pass a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula unless specifically requested by the wife. The court must ensure that the wife voluntarily surrenders her right to dower. The court highlighted the difference between Talaq and Khula, stating that Khula is initiated by the wife and requires her to forego certain rights, whereas Talaq is initiated by the husband and entails paying the dower to the wife. In conclusion, the court found that neither the petitioner intended nor requested dissolution based on Khula, and therefore, the orders issued by the Family Court and the Additional District Judge were without jurisdiction. The petitioner's case for dower will continue before the Family Court, allowing respondent No.3 to present their defense. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and a decree for dissolution of marriage was granted in favor of the petitioner, based on other grounds justifying dissolution.

Summary: PLJ 2021 AJK 16 Present Sadaqat Hussain Raja J SHOUKAT HUSSAIN - - Petitioner versus SHO POLICE STATION KAHORI TEHSIL NASEERABAD DISTRICT MUZAFFARABAD and 13 others - - Respondents WP No 1088 - D of 2020 decided on 2812021 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 44 - - Suit for dissolution of marriage - - Dismissed - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Suit was decreed in consideration of dower amount - - Non payment of dower amount - - Application before SHO regarding non payment of dower amount - - Refused - - Application before justice of peace - - Dismissed - - Second marriage of respondent No 7 after khula - - Registration of FIR uS 10 - A 494 APC against Respondents No 6 7 - - Petition for quashment of FIR - - Nikahnama of Respondents No 6 7 was never challenge by Respondent No 3 - - Presumption of valid marriage - - Challenge to - - Court vide judgment set aside decree of restitution of conjugal rights and passed decree of dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula in consideration of dower however same has not been challenged before upper forum therefore same has attained finality - - Two notable person of locality namely Nisar so Abdul Majeed and Mohammad Akhlaq Abbasi so Abdul Raheem went to home of Respondent No 3complainant to discuss about Khula amount as well as dowry articles and after discussing about this matter both parties decided to restrain from receiving any sort of amount whereas one lac amount regarding dowry articles was outstanding against Respondent No 3 which fact was supported from affidavits executed by Shoukat Hussian so Ghulam Hussain Mohammad Akhlaq Abbasi so Abdur Rahim Abbasi and Nisar Ahmed so Abdul Majeed Abbasi - - Petitioner as well as complainant has affirmed Nikah - nama and after this Nikah proforma Respondents No 6 7 are living as husband and wife which is sufficient proof of valid marriage - - According to principle of Muhammadan Law presumption of valid marriage can be ascertained from fact of acknowledgment by a man or woman as husband and wife - - Courts are bound to protect Family life of State subjects - - Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against proforma Respondents Nos 6 7 - - Offences as alleged in FIR are not made out and continuance of further proceedings against spouses may amount to unnecessary harassment hence continuation of proceeding in FIR in question is a futile exercise and same is liable to be quashed - - Petition was accepted [Pp] A B C D E 2000 YLR 2519 and PLJ 2017 SC (AJK) 84 ref Raja Muhammad Altaf Khan Advocate for Petitioner Syed Sharafat Hussain Naqvi Advocate for Respondent No 3 AAG for official respondentsJudgement Result:Petition accepted

Summary: Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Relationship between husband and wife were strained, which later on ended with dissolution of their marriage, in such an eventuality the alleged gift by wife in favour of her husband was required to be proved through direct, tangible and corraborative evidence in order to substantiate the factum of gift, which is lacking at the part of the petitioner, held. suit was rightly decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent