Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199----Writ jurisdiction----Scope of interference by High Court----Findings based on misreading/non-reading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, or arbitrary exercise of power In constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, the High Court does not ordinarily re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact. However, it can interfere when findings are based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, misapplication of law, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, or arbitrary exercise of power. The High Court has the authority to correct such errors to ensure justice and address violations of law or evidence. Cited Cases: Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246) (b) Family Law ----Dower----Burden of proof----Effect of insufficient evidence----Qanun-e-Shahadat not strictly applicable to Family Court proceedings The petitioner contended that 10-tola gold ornaments were handed over to the respondent before rukhsati in the presence of family members, supported by photographs and the statement of DW-2 (maternal grandfather). The court held that the Family Court is not bound by strict application of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The petitioner's evidence, including the witness statement and photographs, was sufficient, reliable, and unrebutted. The Additional District Judge's rejection of this evidence was deemed unjustified. Disposition: The High Court set aside the findings of the Additional District Judge regarding the recovery of 10-tola gold ornaments as dower, holding that the respondent was not entitled to claim the same. Cited Cases: Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246) (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 ----Jurisdiction of Family Courts----Evidentiary requirements----Standard of proof in Family Court proceedings Family Courts are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence. However, the evidence presented must be sufficient, reliable, and credible to substantiate claims. In the present case, the petitioner provided documentary evidence (photographs) and oral testimony (DW-2), which went unrebutted. The findings of the lower appellate court were set aside as they failed to appreciate this evidence properly. Disposition: Petition allowed. Judgment modified to exclude the entitlement of the respondent to recover 10-tola gold ornaments as dower. Cited Cases: Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa (2001 SCMR 338) Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246) (d) Maintenance Allowance ----Scope of maintenance allowance----Iddat period----Financial capacity of husband The maintenance allowance awarded by the Family Court and upheld by the appellate court was not disturbed, as it was found to be reasonable and supported by evidence. The petitioner failed to provide any compelling evidence regarding his inability to pay the maintenance amount. Disposition: Maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/- per month for the iddat period was upheld. Disposition: Petition allowed. The respondent was held not entitled to recover 10-tola gold ornaments as dower, while the maintenance allowance for the iddat period was maintained.

Summary: Facts:The complainant, Khawar Farid Maneka, filed a private complaint against Imran Khan Niazi and Mst. Bushra Bibi alleging the commission of offenses under sections 496 & 496(B)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complaint centered around the accusation that Niazi and Bibi went through a marriage ceremony on January 1, 2018, during Bibi's 'Iddah' period following her divorce from Maneka on November 14, 2017. The complainant asserted that this act was fraudulent, unlawful, and done with dishonest intentions, causing him wrongful loss by depriving him of the opportunity to reconcile with Bibi during her 'Iddah' period.---Issue:The primary legal issue was whether the respondents had gone through a marriage ceremony fraudulently and dishonestly, knowing that they were not lawfully married, especially considering the 'Iddah' period of Mst. Bushra Bibi following her divorce from the complainant.---Holding:The court found both respondents, Imran Khan Niazi and Mst. Bushra Bibi, guilty under section 496 PPC for going through an unlawful marriage ceremony with fraudulent and dishonest intentions during the 'Iddah' period of Mst. Bushra Bibi.---Rationale:The court established that the respondents acted dishonestly and fraudulently by entering into a marriage during Bibi's 'Iddah' period, which deprived the complainant of his right to 'Rujuh' (reconciliation). The court also noted that the second marriage ceremony in February 2018 indicated the respondents' acknowledgment of the first marriage's impropriety during the 'Iddah' period. The court referenced Islamic principles, Pakistani law, and precedents to support the decision, emphasizing the sanctity of the 'Iddah' period and the illegality of marrying during this time without completing it.---Sentence:Both Imran Khan Niazi and Mst. Bushra Bibi were sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,00,000 each. In default of payment, they would undergo an additional four months of simple imprisonment.

Summary: Bail denied ---- Issues:The legality of marrying two real sisters concurrently.The permissibility of marrying a sister of the divorced wife during her Iddat period.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed Musawar Hussain's bail application, reasoning that the marriage with Sumaira while Humaira's Iddat was ongoing, parallels the unlawful act of marrying two sisters simultaneously, incurring criminal liability. Despite Musawar's claims of divorcing Humaira, the divorce deed's authenticity was questionable as it lacked proper registration and was not found in the stamp vendor's register. The court also addressed the initial registration of FIR under section 365-B PPC, clarifying that the complainant's allegations of abduction justified the FIR's cognizance. The court's observations are tentative, and the trial court is to decide the case based on trial evidence, uninfluenced by these preliminary findings.------Citations/Precedents:Surah Al-Nur (24:32) and Surah Al-Rum (30:21): Highlight the sacredness of marriage in Islam.Iftikhar Nazir Ahmad Khan and others v. Ghulam Kibria and others (PLD 1968 Lahore 587): Discussed the prohibitions on marriage within Islamic law.Adeela Bibi and another v. The State and others (PLJ 2012 Islamabad 140): Addressed the legal consequences of fasid (irregular) marriages.Surah Al-Nisa (4:23) and Sunan Tirmazi (Hadith No. 1129): Explicitly forbid marrying two sisters simultaneously.Muhammad Arif v. The State (PLD 1982 FSC 292): Emphasized the continuation of marital obligations during the Iddat period.Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961: Outlines the conditions under which Talaq becomes effective.Kundan Mai v. The State (PLD 1988 FSC 89) and subsequent cases: Reinforced the legal principles concerning Talaq and remarriage during Iddat.

Summary: Background: In Shariat Petition No. 11-I/2022, the petitioner challenged Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, arguing that it allows Khula (dissolution of marriage initiated by the wife) without the husband's consent, which he claimed is against Islamic injunctions. The petitioner sought to have this section declared un-Islamic and void, and to have the law amended to require the husband's consent for Khula. ----Issues: 1- Whether Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, allowing Khula without the husband's consent, is against Islamic injunctions. 2- Whether the Family Court's decision granting Khula to the petitioner's wife without his consent is valid under Islamic law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Section 10(4): The Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court in “Saleem Ahmad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others” (PLD 2014 FSC 43) had already addressed the issue. It was held that courts of competent jurisdiction could decree Khula when reconciliation fails, even without the husband's consent. This decision affirms that Section 10(4) does not violate Islamic injunctions. --Judicial Authority to Grant Khula: The court emphasized that the judiciary has the authority to dissolve marriages, including Khula, if reconciliation fails. This authority is supported by Islamic principles, as courts are established to resolve disputes, including those involving marriage dissolution. --Legal Effect of Khula: The court reiterated that Khula operates as a single irrevocable divorce, allowing both parties to remarry each other without an intermediary marriage, unlike in the case of a triple talaq where halala (intermediary marriage) is required. The court noted that Iddat (waiting period) applies to the wife if she wishes to remarry after Khula. The Shariat Petition was dismissed in limine, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court upheld the earlier judgment of the Full Bench and confirmed that Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, allowing Khula without the husband's consent, is consistent with Islamic law. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2014 FSC 43 (Saleem Ahmad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others) PLD 2013 Lahore 88 (Major Qamar Zaman Qadir v. Judge Family Court, Jehlum and others) PLD 2013 Sindh 209 (Danish v. Mst. Fozia Danish and another) 2011 CLC 1211 (Attiq Ahmed Khan vs. Noor-ul-Saba and another) PLD 2010 Karachi 131 (Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Mst. Shehla Rasheed and another) PLD 2003 Peshawar 169 (Fazli-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and 3 others) 2000 MLD 447 (Gulzar Hussain v. Mst. Mariyam Naz) PLD 1970 Lahore 1 (Mst. Nawab Bibi and 14 others v. Mst. Anwar Bibi and 6 others)

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent filed four suits seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, dower, maintenance, and recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated the suits and decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, awarding maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, and dismissed other suits, including the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant appealed against the dissolution of marriage and the maintenance allowance decree. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court erred in dissolving the marriage on the basis of khula. 2- Whether the Family Court correctly awarded maintenance allowance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dissolution of Marriage (Khula): The court upheld the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, referencing Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah from the Holy Quran, which allows a wife to seek divorce by returning consideration to the husband if they cannot keep within the limits of God. The court emphasized that a judge can order khula even without the husband's agreement, based on precedents from the life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), where khula was enforced upon the wife's request for separation due to incompatibility or extreme dislike. The evidence presented showed sufficient grounds for mental cruelty and an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship, justifying the khula decree. --Maintenance Allowance: The court upheld the award of maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, citing the husband's failure to provide maintenance and evidence of mental cruelty and neglect. The court reasoned that the husband's duty to maintain his wife continues unless there is clear evidence of disobedience or wrongful abandonment, which was not substantiated by the appellant. The appeal challenging the dissolution of marriage was dismissed, and the award of maintenance allowance was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah, Holy Quran Instances of khula enforced by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge [2006 SCMR 100] Mst. Ambreen v. Muhammad Kabeer [2014 SCR 504] Muhammad Sabil Khan v. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique [2015 SCR 521] Mehvish Kazmi v. Parvaiz Hussain [PLD 2022 SC (AJ&K) 1] Zaheer-ud-Din Babar v. Shazia Kausar [2016 CLC 332] Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin [PLD 1967 SC 97] Zubair v. Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 89] Multan Jan v. The State [2020 P.Cr.LJ 88] B. Premanad vs. Mohan Koikal [AIR 2011 SC 1925] Muzaffar Ali v. Mst. Mehran Nisa [1989 CLC 1805] Muhammad Yaseen v. The State [2001 YLR 289] Sheikh Saeed Ahmed v. Abdul Wahid [1999 SCMR 1852]

Summary: Background: In the consolidated Family Appeals No: 62/2023 and No: 63/2023, the appellant, challenged the judgment and decrees passed by the Additional District Judge, acting as a Family Court in Bagh, on January 23, 2023. The appellant had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent, Syeda Muneeba Gillani, had filed suits for dower and maintenance allowance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance allowance despite leaving the appellant's house. 2- Whether the dower amount was outstanding and should be paid by the appellant. 3- Whether the trial court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant was justifiable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintenance Allowance: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant maintenance allowance to the respondent. It was determined that the respondent had left the appellant’s house due to mental and physical cruelty, making her entitled to maintenance. --Dower: The court confirmed that the dower amount of PKR 100,000 was outstanding and should be paid by the appellant. The contents of the "Nikahnama" indicated the dower as deferred, and the appellant’s witness admitted that the dower was unpaid. --Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The court set aside the trial court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant. The evidence showed that the respondent had suffered mental torture and cruel treatment, making it unreasonable to compel her to return to the marital home. The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant maintenance allowance and the outstanding dower to the respondent. However, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant was set aside. The respondent was also deemed entitled to past maintenance and maintenance for the "iddat" period following the appellant’s divorce on January 23, 2023. -----Citations/Precedents: Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge [2006 SCMR 100] Mst. Ambreen v. Muhammad Kabeer [2014 SCR 504] Muhammad Sabil Khan v. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique [2015 SCR 521] Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin [PLD 1967 SC 97] Zubair v. Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 89]

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the judgments and decrees of the Family Court, Phalia, and the Additional District Judge, Phalia. These judgments partially decreed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance, and dowry articles filed by the respondents. The Family Court had ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance for the minors at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month per child and maintenance for the respondent (the wife) during the Iddat period. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that the minors were born and residing in Italy, making the cause of action for their maintenance outside Pakistan's jurisdiction. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court in Phalia had jurisdiction to hear the case regarding maintenance, given that the minors and the petitioner were residing in Italy. 2- Whether the maintenance decree issued by the Family Court and upheld by the Additional District Judge was valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction: The court found that the Family Court in Phalia did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The minors were born and resided in Italy, where both parents had lived since shortly after their marriage. The cause of action for the maintenance, including expenses for food, accommodation, health, and education, arose in Italy. The court noted that Italy, as a welfare state, provided substantial support for minor citizens, which should have been considered when determining the quantum of maintenance. Since the cause of action arose outside Pakistan, the courts in Italy were deemed to have jurisdiction, and the suit for maintenance in Pakistan was not maintainable. Judgment: The court set aside the judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, dismissing the suit for maintenance for lack of jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: Shahdad Khan v. Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and another (2014 CLC 1238) Major Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Mst. Saadia Yaqub and others (PLD 2012 SC 66) Muhammad Younas v. Shahzad Qamar & others (NLR 1982 CLJ 35)

Summary: Background: A suit was filed in the Family Court for the dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance, dower, and dowry articles. The court dissolved the marriage and awarded Rs. 4000 per month for the maintenance of a minor child with an annual increase, Rs. 15,000 to the wife for the iddat period, Rs. 100,000 for dowry articles, and 75% of the unpaid dower in the form of a residential house or its market value. Both parties filed cross-appeals, but the appellate court upheld the Family Court's decision. The husband challenged the award of 75% unpaid dower in the Lahore High Court, arguing that, under Islamic law, the wife was bound to return all paid dower and forgo unpaid dower upon obtaining Khula. -----Issues: 1- Whether the wife was entitled to retain 75% of the unpaid dower after obtaining Khula. -----2- Whether the recent ruling by the Federal Shariat Court in Imran Anwar Khan v. Government of Punjab applied, which invalidated certain provisions of the Family Courts Act allowing the wife to retain a portion of the dower. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the lower court's judgment, affirming the wife's entitlement to 75% of the unpaid dower. It was established that while Imran Anwar Khan invalidated the statutory cap on the proportion of dower a wife could retain upon Khula, the courts retained the discretion to determine the amount of dower return or surrender based on the facts of the case. In this instance, the court found that the husband was largely at fault due to cruelty and non-maintenance, and thus it was justified to grant the wife a substantial portion of the unpaid dower. The court also clarified that this decision was consistent with Islamic principles, which provide that a wife may retain her dower if she seeks Khula due to mistreatment or other valid grounds. -----Citations/Precedents: Imran Anwar Khan and others v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2022 Federal Shariat Court 25) Dr. Anees Ahmad v. Mst. Uzma (PLD 1998 Lahore 52) Khalid Mahmood v. Anees Bibi and 2 others (PLD 2007 Lahore 626) Muhammad Kamran v. Mst. Samera Majeed and others (2018 YLR 1251) Mst. Saima Irum and 3 others v. Tariq Javed and another (2006 MLD 83) Mst. Zahida Bi v. Muhammad Maqsood (1987 CLC 57) Saleem Ahmad and others v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2014 Federal Shariat Court 43)

Summary: Petitioner divorced his wife and proceedings are under/before Arbitration Council, applied for withdrawal of divorce during Iddat but Arbitration Council refused withdrawal on grounds of Non-Maintainability.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a constitutional petition seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance, which was partly decreed by the Family Court in Sheikhupura on September 15, 2015. The petitioner No. 1 married the respondent on March 24, 2011, and they had one child, petitioner No. 2. Following differences, the petitioner filed a suit for past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per head per month. The Family Court decreed the suit partly, granting petitioner No. 1 maintenance only for the period of "Iddat" at Rs. 15,000, and for petitioner No. 2 at Rs. 5,000 per month with a 10% annual increase. Dissatisfied with this, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking enhancement of the decreed maintenance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner (mother) can be deprived of maintenance allowance despite having a suckling baby with her. 2- Whether the maintenance allowance of the minor can be waived by the mother or any blood relative. 3- Whether the maintenance allowance fixed by the Family Court reflects the respondent's financial status and the growing needs of the minor. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the mother of a suckling baby cannot be deprived of maintenance allowance, emphasizing that the father is responsible for maintaining his child, especially during the period of breastfeeding, which is considered up to 2.5 years under Islamic law. Thus, the mother is entitled to maintenance for this period. The Court ruled that the right to maintenance for the minor cannot be waived by the mother or any blood relative, as it is a right granted by Shariah. The Court noted that the Family Court had not fully considered the respondent's financial capacity and the increased costs of raising the child. The judgment was modified to entitle the mother to maintenance for the period of breastfeeding and acknowledged that the Family Court could reassess and enhance the maintenance allowance as necessary. The Court partly accepted the petition, modifying the Family Court’s judgment and decree to include past maintenance allowance for the mother at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month from July 24, 2013, to July 13, 2014, with a 10% annual increase. The maintenance allowance for the period of "Iddat" and for the minor as decreed by the Family Court was upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Lt. Col. Nasir Malik vs Additional District Judge Lahore (2016 SCMR 1821): "Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction relating to maintenance allowance and the matters connected therewith. Once a decree by the Family Court in a suit for maintenance (for minors) was granted, thereafter, if the granted rate for monthly allowance was insufficient and inadequate, in that case, the institution of a fresh suit was not necessary rather the Family Court may entertain any such application (under S.151, C.P.C) and if necessary make alteration in the rate of maintenance allowance."