Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Amendment in pleadings---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby an application of the respondent seeking amendment in her suit in the title, body and likewise in the prayer clause by seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula instead of dissolution on the basis of cruelty was allowed---Validity---Family Court, by allowing the amendment, had not exceeded its jurisdiction and the order was passed in the best interest of both the parties to avoid anotherround of litigation between themselves---Trial Court had not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Procedure---Scope---Family Court is competent to regulate its own proceedings for expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes as the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not make provisions for every conceivable eventuality or unforeseen circumstances .Akhtar Ali Said Beha v. Mst. Naheed Bibi PLD 2003 Pesh. 630 ref.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss.5, Sched. & 10 ---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Pre-trial proceedings---Scope---Petitioner assailed the validity of decree passed by Trial Court for dissolution of marriage onthe basis of khula---Trial Court had afforded several opportunities to the defendant to appearfor pre-trial reconciliation proceedings to reconcile the controversy but he failed to do so,therefore, the right of the petitioner was struck off---Validity---No specific provision existedin the Family Courts Act, 1964, for striking off the defence of the defendant, however,mentioning of a word "if any" in subsection (2) of S.10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964,clearly showed the intention of legislature that the Family Court was neither helpless norsupposed to act as a silent spectator towards the inaction of the defendant in filing of writtenstatement or not appearing for pre-trial reconciliation and if need arose it could proceed tostrike off the defence of the defendant---Trial Court had not committed any illegality orirregularity warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutionaljurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Divorce Act (IV of 1869)-------S. 3(2), (3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 & O.VII, R.10---Suit for separationand dissolution of marriage---Territorial jurisdiction---Parties were Christian by faith andsuing spouse sought separation and divorce on the plea of desertion---Defending spousesought return of plaint on the plea that they were living at place "Q" and cause of action hadalso accrued at place "Q" therefore, Courts at place "M" had no power to adjudicate---Validity---Suing spouse had choice of selecting his / her forum either as (i) the district whereparties had last resided together or (ii) the district within the local limits of which both thehusband and wife resided, though living separately---Matter was governed by first categorythat parties were married at place "Q" and lastly resided together at place "M"---Fordetermination of jurisdiction, provision of S.20, C.P.C. was not to be taken into considerationas provision of S.3(3) of Divorce Act, 1869, catered for the position with regard todetermination of jurisdiction of Court---In presence of provision in special law the provisionof general law was not to be taken into consideration---High Court declined to interfere inthe order passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Siddiq v. Zawar Hussain PLD 1974 SC 572; Syed Mushahid Shah andothers v. Federal Investment Agency and others 2017 CLD 1198 and State Life InsuranceCorporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others 2017CLD 1080 rel.

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: 1. A wife would lose her dower only if she seeks dissolution of marriage on the sole ground of Khullah, but not when she urges other ground in support of her case unless the other grounds are not proved.2. Her entitlement to receive dower or its retention would remain unaffected and intact if she was able to prove other grounds like cruelty of the husband.

Summary: The appeal is not maintainable in terms of Section 14 (2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 against a decree for dissolution of marriage, the said bar would not be applicable on acceptance of an application filed by wife to challenge a decree for dissolution of marriage obtained in her favour surreptitiously against her will on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, which legal position would be true even if the main suit was revived by setting aside the said decree. The impugned order would amount to a decision given in terms of Section 14 of the Act, consequently, an appeal against the same would be available before the appellate court on any available ground; hence the constitutional petition is premature and not maintainable due to availability of alternate remedy and the same is disposed of as such.

Summary: Background: The respondent (wife) filed three suits against the appellant (husband) in the Family Court at Mirpur, AJK. The suits sought dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles, and maintenance allowance. The couple had married on 08.08.2008, with one child born from the union. The respondent alleged that the appellant subjected her to abuse, neglect, and cruelty, and ousted her from his home in 2009. The respondent sought dissolution of the marriage due to non-maintenance and cruelty. In response, the appellant denied the allegations and filed a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court consolidated the cases and, after hearing the evidence, decreed dissolution of marriage on the ground of non-maintenance and partially allowed the maintenance allowance claim, but dismissed the dowry articles claim for lack of evidence. The appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with the Family Court’s decision, the appellant challenged it in the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeals. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of AJK. -----Issues: 1- Whether the dissolution of marriage could be granted based on non-maintenance when the statutory period of two years was not fulfilled. -----2- Whether the respondent proved cruelty by the appellant to justify dissolution on that ground. -----3- Whether the dismissal of the appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was legally justified. -----4- Whether the court could modify the decree for dissolution on the ground of khula instead of non-maintenance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-Maintenance Issue: The Supreme Court found that while the respondent claimed non-maintenance, the two-year statutory period of non-maintenance was not met at the time the dissolution suit was filed. Cruelty Allegation: The court noted that the allegations of cruelty were not sufficiently proven by the respondent to justify dissolution of the marriage on that ground. --Khula as a Justifiable Ground: The court recognized the respondent’s statement that she could no longer live with the appellant within the limits ordained by Allah. This was sufficient to dissolve the marriage on the ground of khula, which allows a wife to seek divorce based on irreconcilable differences. --Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The dismissal of the appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was upheld, as the court found that forcing the respondent to return to the marital relationship was not feasible. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decree, dissolving the marriage on the ground of khula instead of non-maintenance. The court ordered the respondent to return the dower and any other benefits received from the appellant. -----Citations/Precedents: Islamic Family Law Principles: Courts in AJK have the authority to dissolve a marriage based on khula if the wife expresses that she cannot live with her husband in harmony. Family Law Precedents in AJK: The courts emphasize the importance of non-coercion in marital disputes and favor dissolution if reconciliation is not possible.

Summary: (a) Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage: The key issue in this case is the validity of the alleged divorce pronounced by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner pronounced a single divorce on 17.08.2014 during a telephonic conversation, which was also communicated to her mother. However, the petitioner denied this assertion, maintaining that no divorce had taken place and that the marriage remained intact. The learned Family Court and Appellate Court did not frame an explicit issue regarding the pronouncement of divorce or make a determination on whether the marriage had been dissolved. The Court emphasized the importance of resolving this issue, as the entitlement to maintenance during the iddat period and the deferred dower depends on the dissolution of marriage (citing Mst. Kaneez Fatima v. Wali Muhammad (PLD 1998 SC 901)). The failure to establish the dissolution of the marriage resulted in an error of law regarding the entitlement to maintenance and deferred dower. (b) Maintenance and Dower: The Court examined the entitlement of the respondent to maintenance and deferred dower. In the absence of a clear determination regarding the dissolution of marriage, the Court held that the entitlement to deferred dower and maintenance for the iddat period could not be granted. As per Saadia Usman v. Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon (2009 SCMR 1458), deferred dower becomes payable only upon the dissolution of the marriage. Additionally, the failure to issue a divorce notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, compounded the issue. (c) Dowry Articles and Minors' Maintenance: The petitioner contested the decree concerning the recovery of dowry articles, specifically gold ornaments. During cross-examination, the petitioner acknowledged possession of certain dowry items, confirming the findings of the learned Family Court regarding their entitlement. Regarding the maintenance for minors, the Court held that the awarded amount of Rs. 5,000 per month per minor was not excessive, as it was a reasonable amount in light of the needs of growing children. ----Disposition: The petition is partially accepted. The judgments and decrees of the learned Family Court and the learned District Judge (East) are set aside concerning the maintenance for the iddat period and deferred dower. The matter is remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision on the issue of whether the petitioner had divorced respondent No.1 on 17.08.2014. The learned Family Court is directed to reconsider issues related to maintenance and deferred dower based on this new finding. The remaining aspects of the petition are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Summary: The case involved a marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1, who are Christians. Despite the absence of children in the marriage, the respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking the dissolution of marriage and the recovery of dowry articles. The trial court, granted recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs. 100,000 but dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage. The appellate court, in a consolidated judgment, upheld the recovery of dowry articles and additionally granted the dissolution of marriage. The petitioner, displeased with the judgment, filed a constitutional petition. The petitioner argues that the judgments were against the law and facts, based on surmises and conjectures, and fail to consider crucial facts. The court, citing Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, emphasized that divorce for Christians is contingent upon specific grounds such as adultery. The petitioner was accused of adultery, leading to cruelty, but the court finds the evidence presented by the respondent No.1 insufficient and unreliable. Consequently, the court sets aside the decree for the dissolution of marriage. However, the court upheld the judgments regarding the recovery of dowry articles, deeming the findings based on proper appreciation of evidence. The constitutional petition was partially allowed, setting aside the dissolution of marriage but upholding the recovery of dowry articles.

Summary: (a) Islamic-law-------Marriages---Irregular marriage---When a lady entered into marriage before completion ofiddat period, then said marriage would not be a "void marriage" but would be an irregularmarriage---Such union, which was an "irregular marriage", could not be regarded as beingagainst Sharia.Allah Dad v. Mukhtar Ahmed 1992 SCMR 1273 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 373 & 372---Succession Certificate---Nature of proceedings under Ss.373 & 372 ofSuccession Act, 1925---Dispute between legal heirs and intricate questions of facts,determination of---Scope---Procedure provided for in S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was ofa summary nature and did not decide rights of parties---For determination of rights as legalheirs, remedy lay before a court of competent jurisdiction---Intricate questions of fact couldnot be resolved in such summary proceedings, and questions as to title of property had to bedecided before a civil court.