Summary: Respondent No. 3 originally filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage, return of dowry articles, and maintenance. The Family Court initially granted her claims, dissolving the marriage, ordering the return of Rs. 60,000 by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, and awarding maintenance and dowry compensation. Both parties appealed these decisions, and the appeals were consolidated. The appellate court modified the judgments, resulting in the dissolution of marriage and an increase in the dowry compensation from Rs. 1,25,000 to Rs. 1,50,000.Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed another suit for the recovery of gold ornaments and a third suit for the recovery of personal belongings, both of which were contested by the petitioner. These suits were filed after the earlier judgment and decree. The petitioner claimed that these suits were not maintainable because the earlier suit had already been decided, and according to the principles of res judicata, respondent No. 3 should have raised these claims in the initial suit.In response, respondent No. 3 argued that the principles of res judicata did not apply in family suits and that her claims in the subsequent suits were distinct from those in the original suit. The court examined these arguments and found that res judicata did apply to family suits. The court also noted that respondent No. 3's claims in the subsequent suits overlapped with those in the original suit.Furthermore, the court found inconsistencies and errors in the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, particularly with respect to the nature of the claims and the amounts involved. The judges' decisions seemed inconsistent and lacking in legal acumen. As a result, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decrees, dismissing the suit filed by respondent No. 3.

Summary: ----S. 7 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 9---Certificate of effectivenessof divorce, issuance of---Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance---FamilyCourt passed ex-parte judgment---Husband moved application for s

Summary: Dissolution of marriage ex-parte decree...Family Court is bound to send notice of ex-parte decree alongwith its copy... Limitations for filling application for setting aside ex-parte decree starts from the date of acknowledgement of the decree.

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: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Family Court (East), Islamabad, dismissing his application to dismiss a dissolution of marriage suit filed by the respondent on the basis of khula. The petitioner contended that the Family Court (East) lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the respondent had filed an earlier suit in the Family Court (West). The respondent argued that her residence had changed, which brought the case within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court (East). The petitioner also sought a review of the order and the appointment of a local commission to ascertain the respondent’s residence, which was similarly dismissed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court (East), Islamabad, had territorial jurisdiction to hear the dissolution of marriage suit. -----2- Whether the respondent’s change of residence affected the jurisdiction of the court. -----3- Whether the petitioner's rights were prejudiced by the proceedings continuing in the Family Court (East). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Territorial Jurisdiction: The court held that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, a family court within the local limits of the wife’s ordinary residence has jurisdiction to hear a dissolution of marriage suit. The address provided by the respondent in the second suit was within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (East), Islamabad. The mere fact that the respondent had filed a prior suit in the Family Court (West) did not prevent her from changing her residence and filing a suit in the appropriate court with jurisdiction over her new residence. --Change of Residence: The court recognized that family matters prioritize the convenience of the female litigant. The respondent’s change of residence justified filing the case in a new jurisdiction. Prejudice to the Petitioner: The petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the case proceeding in the Family Court (East). The court emphasized that the procedural rules favor the convenience of estranged wives in such matters. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Fozia v. Aziz Ullah (2010 CLC 403): Territorial jurisdiction prioritizes the ordinary residence of the wife. Shaheen v. Muhammad Ali (2006 YLR 59): Courts prioritize the convenience of female litigants in family disputes. Lakhi v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab (2005 MLD 1994): Jurisdiction based on residence in family suits. Basharat Hussain v. Mst. Amna Hussain (2004 YLR 2446): Addressed territorial jurisdiction in family matters. Syed Zia ul Hassan Gilani v. Mian Khadim Hussain (PLD 2001 Lahore 188): Discussed the significance of residence in determining jurisdiction.

Summary: Art. 199.Appeal against decree of dissolution of marriage u/s. 2(d) (Viii) Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act, 1939 is barred u/s 14(2) W.P Family Court Act, 1964.

Summary: The petitioner is challenging FIR, which contains charges under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The FIR alleges that the petitioner, was involved in a case of abduction and theft of gold ornaments, cash, and household articles. The petitioner's counsel argues that the FIR is based on false and fabricated facts. They claim that the petitioner never contracted a "Nikah" (marriage) with the complainant/respondent No. 4 and that she had actually married a person named Saif-ul-Malook. The petitioner's counsel also highlighted that the petitioner had voluntarily recorded her statement before a court, expressing her desire to live with her husband Saif-ul-Malook. They argued that the petitioner's rights to marriage and family life, as protected by Article 35 of the Constitution, are being violated. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 4 argues that the petitioner is misusing pre-arrest bail and that her "Nikah" with Saif-ul-Malook is a forged document. They contend that the petitioner herself had previously filed a suit for the dissolution of her marriage, admitting that she had entered into a marriage with the complainant/respondent No. 4. The Assistant Advocate General opposes the petition, stating that the FIR should not be quashed, especially since the challan (charge sheet) has been submitted to the trial court. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, citing the principle of res judicata (a matter already judged) and the fact that the trial is ongoing, with the petitioner having the option to seek premature acquittal under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 10, 12, 14(2)(b) & 17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower---Appeal---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Pre-trial proceedings---Scope---Payment of dower amount---Stage of determination---Powers of Family Court---Scope---Petitioner/ wife filed suit against respondent/husband, in which Family Court, on failure of reconciliation in pre-trial stage, while granting Khula, also settled issue of payment of dower on oath taken by the wife that she had not received dower amount---Husband challenged order of Family Court to the extent of settlement as to payment of dower amount contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to settle the issue regarding payment of dower amount in pre-trial proceedings---Wife challenged maintainability of constitutional petition contending that dower amount settled between parties was rupees fifty thousand and after settlement of issue of dower amount by Family Court, the order regarding dower amount was to be challenged through appeal in terms of S.14(2)(b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Validity---Powers of Family Court in terms of Ss.10(2) & 10(3) read with S.17 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 were not limited to any particular stage of proceedings for settlement of any "ascertained issue" between the parties---Mere use of word "pre-trial" would not mean trial had not started---Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue of dower amount at pre-trial stage---Dower amount was admittedly rupees fifty thousand and husband in his written statement had specifically stated to have the same paid to the wife in shape of ornaments and claimed the same to be in her possession---Order as to dower amount was appealable in terms of S.14(2)(b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Husband had challenged the impugned order through constitutional petition under bona fide belief that the order passed in pre-trial was in nature of preliminary decree and the same was not appealable---Constitutional petition had been filed within a period in which husband could have assailed the impugned order through appeal---Husband in approaching court through constitutional jurisdiction could not be termed mala fide---Court in such like situation, could convert petition into appeal or revision, or appeal into petition, subject to limitation---Constitutional petition was not maintainable---Husband was allowed to file appeal within fifteen days and time consumed in constitutional proceedings was condoned---Constitutional petition was disposed off accordingly.

Summary: S.14,5 FCA,S.2(ii)(viii) DMMA 1939:Cruelty & reduction in maintenance as a ground of dissolution of marriage--Scope

Summary: The case involved a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent, who were married in 1996 and had two children. The petitioner argued that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to give such a declaration as the Talak notice was withdrawn before it became effective. However, the court upheld the validity of the Family Court's decree, citing Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which states that Talak shall not be effective until 90 days after the notice is delivered to the Chairman. The court emphasized that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters related to dissolution of marriage, and any issues related to the termination of the marriage must be raised and adjudicated by the Family Court. The petitioner's claim that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction was dismissed. Additionally, the court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Family Court's decision was appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Writ petition was dismissed.