Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----Dowry and bridal gifts---Recovery of alternate value of dowry articles---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioner/wife challenged concurrent family court judgments whereby trial court had granted 30% alternate value of dowry articles but appellate court had set aside even that relief---Held, dowry articles and personal belongings of a wife remain her exclusive property and, where not returned in specie, she may claim their alternate value, subject to proof of existence, entrustment and retention---Appellate Court failed to appreciate material admissions and surrounding circumstances, including respondent/husband’s own stance that household articles were available in the house and his admission that no traditional dowry was given at the time of marriage, coupled with his assertion that he purchased various household luxuries during matrimony---Where original financial details were withheld by husband and wife’s bank record showed regular withdrawal of her salary for household consumption, presumption operated in favour of wife’s contribution---Appellate Court had, therefore, misdirected itself in discarding claim in toto merely on ground that wife had not produced her parents or further documentary proof. (b) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (LXXVIII of 1976)----Ss. 2 & 5---Dowry---Meaning and legal status---Property given to bride before or after marriage by her parents in connection with marriage constitutes dowry, excluding inherited property---Wife has absolute right in her dowry and bridal gifts---Any property rights available to a woman cannot be restricted, controlled or limited, and every gift becomes her exclusive property---There is no legal bar to a wife purchasing household articles herself after marriage and claiming them as dowry articles within the meaning of law, if such articles were acquired in connection with marriage and matrimonial home. Reliance placed on Ghulam Rasool v. Family Court 1991 CLC 1696 and Syeda Mehwish v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West) 2018 CLC 1337. (c) Family proceedings---Proof of dowry articles---Nature of evidence required---Strict rules of evidence---Held, wife’s solitary statement may be sufficient to prove existence of dowry items in a recovery suit, and oral testimony can substantiate a dowry claim because Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not apply in its strict sense to family proceedings---There is no rigid formula requiring receipts, shopkeepers’ details or production of parents in every case---Determination depends upon facts of each case and overall probabilities emerging from evidence. Reliance placed on Aziz-Ur-Rehman v. Mst. Bibi Jameela 2020 CLC 380 and Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous 2017 SCMR 393. (d) Dowry articles---Valuation of used household goods---Principles---Held, valuation of dowry articles is to be made case to case with reference to nature, quality, user period and prevailing market conditions---Judge, Family Court cannot adopt a bare rule of thumb without objective criteria---For assessing alternate value of used household articles, relevant factors include: present and past market value; years of use; average life of article; sentimental value attached to item; need to account for replacement at current price where article remains with husband; online market sources and auction platforms for valuation; reasonable depreciation; inflation and consumer price data; and average market prices supplied by parties---Used item may generally be considered at half price, but not below that level, unless marital breakdown occurred within first one or two years, in which case value may be considered around 80% in view of inflation and taxation---Family Court may use modern scientific tools, data, websites and market applications without requiring expert evidence in every case. Reliance placed on Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood 2013 SCMR 1049; Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Mazhar 2014 CLC 895; Mst. Samreen Bibi v. Judge Family Court PLD 2015 Lahore 504; and Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal 2017 SCMR 321. (e) Matrimonial property---Assets acquired during subsistence of marriage---Vehicle purchased in husband’s name---Claim of wife on basis of contribution---Islamic jurisprudence, comparative jurisprudence and equitable principles---Petitioner/wife claimed that vehicle bearing Registration No. AAK-478, Suzuki Cultus, though standing in husband’s name, was acquired with her financial contribution including initial seed money---Held, such asset required consideration not merely as dowry but as matrimonial property---Though under existing Pakistani law a wife does not automatically acquire ownership in husband’s assets merely by marriage, proprietary interest may still be established through proof of contribution, partnership, trust, gift or joint acquisition---Non-financial contributions such as homemaking, childcare and domestic management possess economic significance and can justify recognition of beneficial interest in assets accumulated during marriage---Marriage operates as a cooperative partnership and there should be no bias in favour of sole titled money-earner against homemaker or child-carer. (f) Islamic law---Marriage and property rights---Separate ownership of spouses---Legislative competence to protect women’s matrimonial rights---Held, under classical Islamic jurisprudence husband and wife remain distinct legal persons with separate property rights; wife retains control over her own property and does not, by marriage alone, become owner of husband’s property, nor does husband acquire wife’s property automatically---However, Islamic law does not prohibit legislation for protection of women in respect of matrimonial property where justice and prevention of hardship so require---Concepts of mut‘at al-talaq, maslahah, ijtihad and compensation for women’s contribution provide room for development of protective legal norms---Silence of classical law on community or matrimonial property does not bar modern legislation safeguarding women from post-divorce destitution and exploitation. (g) Comparative jurisprudence---Recognition of marital partnership and non-financial contribution---Held, in a number of jurisdictions including Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Brunei, United Kingdom, United States and Canada, courts and legislation recognize direct and indirect contributions of spouses in distribution of matrimonial assets---Homemaking and childcare are treated as contributions of equal worth to financial input in appropriate cases---Principles of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, equitable distribution and community property regimes demonstrate a broader modern trend that marriage is an economic partnership and domestic contribution materially aids acquisition and preservation of wealth---Such comparative experience may legitimately guide development of family law principles in Pakistan. (h) Women’s rights---Constitutional protection---International obligations---CEDAW---Held, Pakistan, having ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is under an obligation to reconsider its legal framework so as to eliminate discrimination against women in matters concerning ownership, acquisition, management and disposition of property, including consequences of dissolution of marriage---Equal protection of women, particularly homemakers and working wives, requires meaningful legal and policy safeguards in respect of assets acquired during marriage. (i) Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Limits on enhancement of relief---Held, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise evidence to enhance relief granted by trial court---Although appellate court had erred in law and fact by denying wife’s rights altogether, High Court could not itself enhance trial court’s award from 30% to a higher quantified share on writ side---Proper course was to set aside both judgments and remand matter to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties and applying correct legal principles. (j) Recommendations/observations---Legislative reform---Nikahnama---Protection of wife’s property rights---High Court observed that every wife who cohabits with husband during subsistence of marriage should be deemed to have contributed, through domestic labour, childcare and household management, to establishment and maintenance of matrimonial home and family welfare---Recommended that Government initiate comprehensive legislation for equitable distribution of assets acquired during marriage, with enhanced protection for working wives and recognition of homemaker’s contribution---Further observed that Nikahnama may be amended, or appropriate condition inserted in existing form, to record agreement regarding equal division of property acquired after marriage, so as to better protect matrimonial property rights of women. Petition was allowed, judgments and decrees of Family Court and Appellate Court were set aside, and matter was remanded to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties, to be decided within two months.

Summary: (a) Muhammadan Law----Inheritance----Devolution of estate on death of Muslim; co-heirs’ rights; unlawful exclusion of sharers----Predecessor-in-interest, father of parties, died on 1.1.2002 leaving behind five sons and four daughters; suit filed by daughter (respondent No.1/plaintiff) seeking declaration/partition, mesne profits and injunction regarding property admittedly owned by deceased; petitioner/defendant No.6, a son, took exclusive possession, rented out portions and appropriated rent, refusing to recognise shares of other heirs----Held, that under Mohammadan Law, inheritance devolves automatically and immediately upon all legal heirs at the moment of the propositus’ death; every heir, male or female, acquires ownership in the estate as a matter of right, and no heir can lawfully exclude or dispossess another; possession of one co-sharer is deemed, in law, to be on behalf of all co-sharers, and delay in asserting share or challenging mutation does not extinguish such right----Doctrines of waiver, estoppel, relinquishment or adverse possession do not apply inter se co-heirs so as to deprive any heir of his or her share in the inherited property; in the present case, petitioner’s long possession could not ripen into exclusive title against his siblings nor justify their deprivation from inheritance; trial court and first appellate court rightly declared all heirs entitled to their respective shares and ordered partition/sale with distribution of proceeds. Cited cases: Mst. Khalida Azhar v. Viqar Rustom Bakhsi and others (2018 SCMR 30); Islam-ud-Din through LRs and others v. Mst. Noor Jehan through LRs and others (2016 SCMR 986); Ghulam Ali and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1); Anwar Muhammad and others v. Shard Din and others (1983 SCMR 626); Haji v. Khuda Yar (PLD 1983 SC 453); Mirza Abib Baig v. Zahid Sabir (decd.) through LRs and others (2020 SCMR 601); Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and others (2021 SCMR 179). (b) Muhammadan Law----Gift (Hiba) by predecessor-in-interest pleaded to defeat inheritance claim----Burden of proof and essential ingredients----Petitioner/defendant No.6 set up plea that deceased father had gifted suit property to him during his lifetime out of love and affection, supported by an alleged iqrar nama dated 30.06.2000 and a purported certificate of possession issued by Nazim of the union council----Held, that person asserting exclusive title on the basis of gift bears a heavy onus to prove valid hiba; he must establish that donor made a clear and bona fide offer of gift, that it was accepted, and that possession was delivered in pursuance thereof; donor/donee must prove date, time and place of offer and acceptance and produce credible, confidence-inspiring evidence including attesting witnesses----In instant case, iqrar nama was devoid of particulars of witnesses, such as addresses and CNIC numbers, rendering it “dubious and unreliable”; no attesting witnesses were produced; alleged certificate of possession by Nazim was likewise not proved; it was undisputed that till his death predecessor-in-interest continued to exercise possessory rights and utility connections remained in his name----Petitioner failed to discharge burden of proof; plea of gift was rightly rejected by trial court and concurrently by appellate fora as untenable and an attempt to defeat co-heirs’ inheritance. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----Ss. 96 & 100----First appeal; second appeal; concurrent findings of fact; scope of interference by High Court and Supreme Court----Suit for declaration/partition and mesne profits decreed by trial court after framing of issues and recording evidence; first appeal under S.96, CPC dismissed on merits; second appeal under S.100, CPC dismissed by High Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.03.2023, finding no legal infirmity or misreading/non-reading of evidence in concurrent judgments----Petitioner nonetheless invoked Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, assailing concurrent findings on facts without pointing to any substantial question of law----Held, that concurrent findings of fact recorded by two competent courts carry great sanctity and are not to be lightly interfered with in second appeal or at leave stage unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, based on misreading/non-reading of evidence or in derogation of settled law; in present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, rooted in proper appreciation of evidence, consistent with principles of Muhammadan Law regarding inheritance and gift, and raised no question of law warranting interference; petition amounted merely to another attempt to reopen concluded findings and delay enjoyment of lawful inheritance by other heirs; leave to appeal was, therefore, refused and civil petition dismissed. (d) Civil procedure----Partition suit; mesne profits; co-sharer collecting rent to exclusion of others----Trial court decreed suit, declaring all heirs entitled to their respective shares and directing partition or sale; further directed petitioner to pay mesne profits at rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for three years preceding institution of suit, representing rent collected from property; petitioner restrained from creating third-party interest----Held, that where one co-sharer is in exclusive control of income from joint estate and appropriates rent without accounting to others, he is liable to render accounts and pay mesne profits corresponding to co-heirs’ shares; trial court’s approach in awarding mesne profits and protecting estate from alienation was in accordance with law and equity; concurrent affirmation by appellate court and High Court called for no interference. (e) Inheritance of women----Islamic law and public policy----Divine nature of right; impermissibility of curtailment; social evil of deprivation----Federal Shariat Court in Syeda Fauzia Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2025 FSC 1) after detailed examination of Quran, Sunnah and principles of sharia declared that right of inheritance vested in every legal heir, male or female, is a divine right which cannot be curtailed directly or indirectly; practice of depriving women of inheritance is a social evil and contrary to public policy----In present case, petitioner’s conduct in excluding sister (respondent No.1) and other siblings from estate and contesting their lawful shares stood in clear conflict with settled sharia principles and constitutional policy; Supreme Court reiterated that estate of deceased vests automatically and immediately in heirs without intervention of any authority, and violation of inheritance laws amounts to exploitation of vulnerable family members, particularly women, and is wholly impermissible under Islamic law and constitutional norms. Cited case: Syeda Fauzia Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2025 FSC 1). (f) Civil procedure----Frivolous and vexatious litigation; abuse of process; costs as corrective measure----Petitioner, despite having no sustainable case on merits and facing concurrent findings from trial and appellate courts, persisted in litigation up to Supreme Court, causing prolonged deprivation of co-heirs, especially female heir, from their lawful inheritance since 1.1.2002----Held, that continued resort to courts in face of clear and concurrent findings amounted to abuse of judicial process, contributed to mounting backlog and undermined efficient dispensation of justice; such conduct warrants deterrent costs----Accordingly, Supreme Court not only dismissed petition for leave but also imposed cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on petitioner, to be deposited with Registrar within seven days and distributed among legal heirs declared by trial court, thereby both penalizing abuse and partially compensating those whose rights were delayed. (g) Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973----Islamic injunctions; women’s inheritance rights; State’s constitutional duty----Scope----Court, while affirming decrees in favour of female heir, underscored that under Constitution and clear injunctions of Islam, State is obliged to ensure effective and unfettered realization of women’s right to inheritance; such right is not a concession by human law but a divinely ordained command explicitly declared in Holy Quran; any denial or obstruction of this right is not merely unlawful but a transgression against Divine Will----Cultural or societal practices that deprive women of inheritance are rooted neither in faith nor justice but in ignorance which Islam came to abolish; State bears sacred constitutional duty to uproot such practices by ensuring that every woman is informed of, and enabled to claim, her rightful share without delay, fear or dependence on lengthy litigation; it must develop proactive, accessible mechanisms to identify entitled women, reach out to them and assist in securing their entitlements----Those who, through coercion, deceit or undue influence, deprive women of inheritance must be held accountable under law; a society indifferent to such deprivation defies spirit of Constitution and express Command of Almighty Allah; a State that fails to safeguard women’s inheritance rights fails in its duty to uphold principles of equity, faith and justice.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 9 & S. 42 ---- Declaratory suit --- Inheritance claim based on benami transaction ---- Maintainability and burden of proof ---- Scope Plaintiffs, the daughters of the deceased Nasiruddin Ansari, filed a declaratory suit claiming that two properties—House No. C-35, Block-9, Works Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi and House No. A-153, Block-L, North Nazimabad, Karachi—though titled in the name of their mother, were benami assets purchased by their late father. They sought declaration of benami ownership and their share in inheritance. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the benami nature of the transactions. Supreme Court observed that the assertion of benami ownership was based on inferences and lacked documentary or credible oral evidence. The mere assertion in the plaint without explaining the motive or mechanics of the alleged benami arrangement was insufficient. Held, that for a transaction to be declared benami, the burden lies heavily on the party making such assertion, which must be proven through unimpeachable evidence, and not merely on suspicion. Key indicators such as possession of title documents, financial sources, property control, enjoyment of usufruct, and conduct of parties must align to prove a benami transaction. In the present case, there was no evidence that the deceased husband ever disputed the ownership of the properties during his lifetime, nor was there any express or implied agreement to hold the properties benami. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Cited Cases: • Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool PLD 2008 SC 146 • Abdul Majeed v. Amir Muhammad 2005 SCMR 577 • Pether Perumal v. Muniandy ILR 35 Cal 551 (PC) • Gurkaran v. Shella AIR 1918 PC 140 • 4 BLC 17 • Rotofrusy on Civil Law and Rulings, Vol. 1, p. 115 (b) Islamic Law ---- Inheritance --- Challenge to mother’s exclusive ownership by legal heirs (children) after father’s death ---- Requirements for establishing ostensible ownership Under Islamic inheritance principles, the ownership of a spouse cannot be presumed to be ostensible or fictitious merely due to the relationship or timing of purchase. Supreme Court held that once a wife acquires property in her name, it cannot be presumed benami unless a clear agreement or arrangement exists between the actual payer and the named owner. Even where purchase funds might be linked to the husband, absent a specific agreement and evidence that the wife held the property for the husband's benefit, children cannot challenge the title decades later without conclusive proof. Held, that silence or inaction of the deceased during his lifetime regarding the ownership of the properties is a strong indicator of intent to transfer beneficial ownership to the wife. Properties were acquired in 1960 and 1970, and the father passed away in 1985 without raising any dispute. As such, challenge by legal heirs in 1993 lacked legal foundation and was rightly rejected. (c) Benami Transactions ---- Concept, essential elements, and evidentiary burden ---- Source of funds not conclusive ---- Judicial principles restated A benami transaction implies that the property is held by an ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who funded it. However, the source of funds, while relevant, is not conclusive to prove benami character. The Court reiterated that essential conditions include: (i) an express or implied agreement between the real and ostensible owner for the benefit of the former, and (ii) proof that the transaction was directly between the real owner and the seller. Additionally, corroborative factors such as who retained control, paid taxes, and enjoyed possession are critical. Held, that suspicion or delayed assertions by heirs are insufficient to displace documented title, particularly where the alleged real owner (deceased husband) never questioned the wife's ownership during his lifetime. Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No interference warranted in the judgment of the High Court.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Ss. 5, 17 – Maintenance of child – Scope and quantum – Principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence and case law - Held, father is under a continuous legal and religious obligation to maintain his children regardless of the marital status with the mother or custodial arrangements – This obligation is derived from the immutable bond of paternity and not contingent upon cohabitation or custody – Cited with approval: Humayun Hassan v. Arsalan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557); Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, Sections 369–370. (b) Islamic law – Nafaqah (maintenance) – Determination of amount – Considerations of child's needs and father's financial capacity - Held, maintenance must include all reasonable expenses essential for physical, mental, and emotional development of the child, including food, shelter, healthcare, education, and social needs – The father’s income and earning capacity must be weighed, but mere unemployment is not a valid defense if the father is physically and mentally capable of earning – Hanafi position noted: obligation to earn subsists even if wealth is not currently possessed – Cited texts: Hedaya, Ameer Ali on Mahomedan Law, Fyzee’s Outlines of Muhammadan Law. (c) Family law – Custody and maintenance – Distinction – Termination of marriage does not absolve father from child support - Held, the obligation to maintain a child continues post-divorce and is independent of the wife’s right to maintenance – Such duty is not diminished if the child is in the hizanat of the mother – Ethically and legally untenable to link maintenance with custody. (d) Constitutional petition – Scope of interference – Concurrent findings – No material evidence produced to displace factual findings - Held, petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., salary slips, income tax returns) to disprove the findings of the lower courts regarding his financial ability – Petitioner’s claim of limited income and remarriage not substantiated – High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition as no jurisdictional error or illegality found in concurrent decisions. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3) – Leave to appeal – Principles – Concurrent findings of fact by trial, appellate, and High Court – No interference warranted Held, Supreme Court declined to grant leave as no question of law of public importance was made out, and the findings of the courts below were duly supported by the record and legal principles. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Islamic law --- Gift (Hiba) --- Essentials --- Offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession --- Proof --- Failure to prove valid oral gift --- Effect. Petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Imdad Ali, claimed title to inherited property through alleged oral and registered gift deeds. Supreme Court reaffirmed that a valid gift requires: (i) offer by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession. Petitioners failed to plead or prove these elements. Neither the date, time, nor place of the alleged oral gift was provided, nor were any attesting witnesses of the gift transaction produced. No cogent or confidence-inspiring evidence was led to establish offer and acceptance. The petitioners also failed to produce key evidence such as the scribe, marginal witnesses, stamp vendor, sub-registrar, or Patwari to prove the execution and attestation of the registered gift deeds. Consequently, the gift was held to be invalid, and the petitioners' claim was rejected. Cited Cases: • Bilal Hussain Shah v. Dilawar Shah PLD 2018 SC 698 • Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad 2021 SCMR 1986 • Faqir Ali v. Sakina Bibi PLD 2022 SC 85 • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim 2025 SCMR 955 • Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 (b) Law of evidence --- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Arts. 129(g) & 133 --- Best evidence rule --- Withholding material witnesses --- Adverse inference --- Application. Petitioners failed to produce essential witnesses, including the scribe, attesting witnesses, and relevant revenue officials, raising an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Court held that in cases where a party fails to present the best available evidence, the court is justified in drawing a presumption against that party. Oral claims of gift unsupported by credible documentary or witness testimony were held insufficient. (c) Succession --- Inheritance --- Gift by ancestor to exclusion of daughters --- Burden of proof --- Reason for exclusion must be shown --- Presumption against disinheritance. The Court noted that no reason was given by the petitioners for the exclusion of daughters from the inheritance. In cases involving alleged gifts by a deceased ancestor in favour of male heirs to the exclusion of female heirs, courts must scrutinize the claim with greater care. Absence of evidence showing affection or reward-based motivation for the gift raised strong suspicion. Petitioners bore the heavy burden to justify exclusion, which they failed to discharge. (d) Pleadings and evidence --- Relief beyond pleadings --- Impermissibility --- Case to be proved within bounds of pleadings. Supreme Court reiterated that no party may lead evidence beyond its pleadings. Petitioners did not clearly plead the particulars of the alleged oral gift in their written statements and thus were barred from leading evidence in that regard. Courts below correctly refused to entertain unpleaded facts. Cited Cases: • Zulfiqar v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Combined Investment Ltd. v. Wali Bhai PLD 2016 SC 730 • Saddaruddin v. Sultan Khan 2021 SCMR 642 (e) Limitation Act, 1908 --- Art. 120 --- Declaratory suits --- Right to sue --- When accrues --- Continuing right in suits based on inheritance. Court held that in inheritance-based declaratory suits, the right to sue is a continuing right so long as the plaintiff retains a claim over the property. Where fraud or concealment is alleged, limitation begins from the date of knowledge. Respondents in this case only discovered the fraudulent gift when attempting to obtain a revenue extract in 2009. All three courts below rightly held the suit within time under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. Cited Case: • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim 2025 SCMR 955 (f) Civil procedure --- Concurrent findings of fact --- Scope of interference by Supreme Court --- Principles. The Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of three courts below, holding that the judgments were based on proper appraisal of evidence and application of settled legal principles. The petitioners had failed to dislodge those findings through any legal or factual error warranting interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Disposition: Leave refused. Petition dismissed. Judgments of trial court, appellate court, and High Court upheld concurrently.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962—S. 3—Limited ownership—Termination—Inheritance by widow—Scope— Widow of deceased, Mst. Bhagan Bibi, inherited property as limited owner under customary law. Her limited ownership stood terminated upon enforcement of S. 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. Consequently, the property reverted to the estate of the last full owner (her deceased husband) and was to be redistributed among all legal heirs as per Islamic law. Held, any alienation made by widow after enforcement of the Act was valid only to the extent of her share as heir under Islamic law. Sale beyond her share was ineffective and void vis-à-vis other heirs. (b) Civil Procedure—Declaration of inheritance rights—Plea of denial of paternity—Proof—Admissibility of concession by co-defendant— Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) claimed inheritance as daughter of Siraj Din. Though most defendants denied her status, one co-defendant (Defendant No.4), brother of other defendants, admitted plaintiff’s paternity and appeared as PW-3. His testimony remained consistent and unshaken under cross-examination. Held, clear and reliable admission by co-defendant, having same interest as others, constitutes strong corroborative evidence. Mere denial by other defendants, unsupported by documentary or persuasive evidence, was insufficient to rebut established claim. (c) Muhammadan Law—Inheritance—Daughter’s share—Transfer by widow—Effect—Scope of challenge by subsequent purchaser— Plaintiff, being a daughter, was entitled to inherit from father’s estate. Property purchased by Defendant No.10 from the widow was subject to legal limitation—he could only receive the widow’s lawful share. Held, a vendee from a widow has no locus standi to challenge the sharai status of other heirs, nor can he dispute the finality of their legal rights once established by courts. Sale deed (Exh. P-6) was ineffective beyond widow’s share and void vis-à-vis plaintiff’s and other heirs’ entitlements. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—Concurrent findings of fact—Interference by Supreme Court—Scope— Concurrent findings of trial court, appellate court, and High Court in favour of plaintiff declaring her legal entitlement as heir could not be disturbed in absence of any misreading, non-reading, or perversity in appreciation of evidence. Held, no legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect identified to warrant interference by Supreme Court. (e) Civil litigation—Maintainability—Standing of purchaser—Questioning title of vendor’s co-heirs— Purchaser (Defendant No.10) of widow’s share was held not competent to challenge paternity or sharai rights of co-heirs. Held, petitioner lacked locus standi to contest decree passed in favour of plaintiff where original contesting defendants had not appealed the decision. Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave refused; concurrent judgments of trial court, appellate court, and High Court upheld.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law – Nikah – Competence of sui juris woman – Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 11 & 16 – Cr.P.C., S. 561-A – A Muslim woman of sound mind and full age (sui juris) possesses legal autonomy to contract a valid marriage of her own free will without requiring the consent of a wali (guardian) – Marriage voluntarily contracted by an adult woman cannot be criminalized or treated as illicit merely for contravening familial wishes – Registration or family objection does not affect validity of Nikah under Islamic or statutory law – Followed Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir & another (PLD 2004 SC 219). (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – S. 561-A – Quashment of FIR – Abuse of process – FIR lodged under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance against legally married couple – High Court quashed FIR on finding marriage valid and voluntary – Held, once existence of lawful Nikah is established, presumption of zina is fully negated and continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process – Courts are empowered to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of criminal law for personal or familial vengeance. (c) Islamic Jurisprudence – Proof of Zina – Standard of evidence – Under Quranic injunctions and Hudood framework, offence of zina requires testimony of four eyewitnesses to the actual act; conviction cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, or familial disapproval – False accusation of zina is itself a punishable offence under Qur’an (Surah Al-Noor 24:4). (d) Constitutional Law – Fundamental rights – Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 3-G – Protection of dignity, privacy, and liberty – Husband and wife, being lawfully wedded, entitled to full protection of constitutional guarantees against harassment or false prosecution. (e) Administration of justice – Judicial duty – Scope of interference at investigation stage – Exceptional circumstances exist where prosecution is manifestly mala fide or devoid of legal foundation – Quashment justified to prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold sanctity of lawful marriage. Disposition: –– Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. –– High Court’s judgment quashing FIR No. 30/2025 under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance upheld as lawful and justified.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 185(3)---Civil revision---Leave to appeal---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Petitioner’s suit for declaration of ownership based on a gift deed was dismissed by Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court---Held, when three Courts below concurrently appreciate evidence and reach same factual findings, Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere unless miscarriage of justice or gross illegality is shown---No case for interference made out---Leave refused and petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916) • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) (b) Gift (Hiba)---Islamic law---Declaration and validity of oral/registered gift---Requirements---Scope **Donor's retention of possession---Effect---**Gift deed relied upon by petitioner showed that donor had retained possession during his lifetime---Held, retention of possession negates one of the essential elements of a valid gift---Where gift deed imposes future rights or obligations, it must be compulsorily registered---In absence of valid delivery of possession, no lawful title passes to donee. Cited Provisions: • Registration Act, 1908, S. 49 • Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 123 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Art. 79---Proof of document required by law to be attested---Marginal witnesses---Failure to produce---Effect---Petitioner failed to produce attesting witnesses of the gift deed---Witnesses presented only confirmed signatures without establishing reasons for non-production of marginal witnesses or invoking secondary evidence---Held, mandatory requirements of Art. 79 not fulfilled---No evidentiary value attached to such testimony. ---(d) Islamic Inheritance Principles---Exclusion of legal heirs---Scope and burden of proof---**Petitioner, being grandsons, failed to justify why donor would exclude his sons (legal heirs) from inheritance---Held, burden was on donee to establish circumstances justifying exclusion of heirs---Such facts were neither pleaded nor proved---Courts rightly rejected claim. Cited Cases: • Fareed v. Muhammad Tufail (2018 SCMR 139) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (e) Evidence---Oral transaction of gift---Burden and standard of proof---Constructive possession-------In oral or informal transactions, donee must prove gift through unimpeachable evidence, including specific details such as date, time, location, and witnesses---Possession by one heir is presumed to be on behalf of all legal heirs unless rebutted---Held, none of these requirements were fulfilled in the present case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah v. Allah Bakhsh (2021 SCMR 763) • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi (2020 SCMR 276) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (f) Limitation Act, 1908---Inheritance---Right not extinguished by passage of time---Held, mere passage of time does not defeat rightful claims to inheritance---Limitation is not applicable where fraud is alleged or inheritance right is being claimed. Cited Cases: • Mohammad Boota v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) • Syed Kausar Ali Shah v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah (2022 SCMR 1558)

Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 17 & 25 Custody of minor—Welfare of minor as paramount consideration—Father residing abroad, not having met the child since birth, seeking custody after mother's remarriage—Scope—Father had neither sought visitation rights nor made any personal effort to meet or support the minor—Application for custody filed five years after birth of minor—Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently dismissed the claim for custody, emphasizing best interests of child—Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Ss. 17 & 25 of the Act, the determining factor in custody matters is the welfare of the minor, encompassing moral, educational, emotional, physical, and psychological well-being—Natural guardianship does not automatically confer entitlement to custody—The concept of welfare is not static and must be evaluated with reference to surrounding facts, including the existing bond between minor and custodial parent—Child’s continued education, emotional security, and consistent caregiving by mother supported finding that welfare lies with mother despite her remarriage—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi 2008 SCMR 480 • Rahimullah Choudhary v. Mrs. Sayeda Helali Begum 1974 SCMR 305 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839 • Tahira v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 1990 SCMR 852 • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer PLD 2004 SC 357 • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Munawar Bibi v. Muhammad Amin 1995 SCMR 1206 • Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad 2004 SCMR 821 • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen 2022 SCMR 2123 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 (b) Islamic Law ----Custody (Hizanat)---Effect of mother’s remarriage—Scope Mother’s remarriage with a person unrelated to the minor within prohibited degrees does not per se disentitle her from custody—Right of Hizanat under Islamic law is subordinate to welfare of minor and is not forfeited automatically on remarriage—If mother’s custody best serves minor’s welfare, she may retain custody despite remarriage—Reiterated that Islamic jurisprudence recognizes importance of mother-child bond and does not permit disruption unless required by overriding considerations of minor’s welfare—Court cited Islamic traditions and jurisprudence supporting sanctity of motherhood and welfare-centric approach to custody—Petitioner father’s second marriage and continued absence further negated claim to custody. Cited Cases: • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 (c) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 ----Arts. 3(1) & 27 International law—Application of “best interests of the child” principle—Pakistan’s ratification of UNCRC without reservation—Binding obligation to prioritize child’s welfare in all judicial and administrative decisions—Welfare includes child’s material, educational, moral, and emotional development—Courts must interpret domestic guardianship law in light of international standards—UNCRC reinforces the welfare-centric approach under Ss. 17 & 25 of Guardian and Wards Act—Father’s absence, lack of effort to bond with minor, and mother's continued care justified denial of custody—Application of UNCRC principles led to confirmation of findings by lower courts. Cited Instruments: • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 • Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 (d) Civil Procedure ----Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Custody disputes Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless judgment is found to be perverse or arbitrary—Findings of all three courts below found to be well-reasoned, consistent with evidence, and in line with settled principles—No illegality or misreading of evidence shown—Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly—Leave to appeal refused. Cited Cases: • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839

Summary: (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ----S. 7(3)----Effectiveness of Talaq---Death of husband during iddat period—Succession rights of divorced wife—Scope Talaq not effective unless ninety days have passed from notice given to Chairman under S. 7(3) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—Petitioners contended that deceased had divorced respondent by a written talaq deed prior to his death and that she was no longer entitled to inherit—Held, statutory period of ninety days had not expired and talaq had not attained legal effect at the time of death—As death occurred during respondent’s iddat period, marriage was subsisting, and succession had opened—Respondent continued to be legal heir entitled to inherit from deceased husband’s estate—Peshawar High Court’s decision, allowing respondent's share in inheritance, upheld—Petition dismissed. Cited Case: • Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi 1988 SCMR 1812 (b) Islamic Law ----Talaq-e-Biddat---Nature and effect---Recognition by various schools of Islamic jurisprudence---Interpretation Triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat), though historically practiced, not sanctioned by Quran or Hadith—Term “Biddat” itself denotes innovation—Recognized by Hanbali school in limited form, but rejected by Fiqh Jafaria, Shafi, and Maliki schools—Divorce in Islam must follow a structured process that allows reflection, reconciliation, and fairness—Talaq-e-Biddat held inconsistent with Islamic injunctions that prescribe waiting period and opportunity for reconciliation—Recognizing instantaneous triple talaq as final deprives woman of protection embedded in Quranic guidance—Therefore, unless mandatory waiting period is observed, divorce does not become effective in Shariah or law. Cited References: • Surah Al-Baqrah (2:226–232) • Surah Al-Talaq (65:1) • Surah Al-Ahzab (33:49) • Surah Al-Nisa (4:35) • Muslim Law of Divorce by K.N. Ahmed (1984) (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 185(3)---Scope of interference by Supreme Court in revisional matters---Inheritance and succession---Concurrent findings set aside by High Court—Justifiability Where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are found to be contrary to settled law and Islamic injunctions, High Court is justified in setting them aside—Succession opens at the time of death, and legal status of heirs must be determined with reference to that moment—Peshawar High Court rightly concluded that respondent’s marital bond with deceased remained valid at the time of death, entitling her to inherit—Supreme Court declined leave to appeal—No legal infirmity found in impugned judgment. (d) Succession Act, 1925 ----S. 372---Succession certificate---Eligibility of widow during iddat---Effect of pending talaq Where divorce proceedings initiated but not legally completed due to failure of prescribed notice period, widow retains status as lawful heir—Talaq deed alone not sufficient to deprive wife of inheritance unless accompanied by compliance with both Islamic requirements and statutory obligations under Family Laws Ordinance—Respondent, divorced only in writing shortly before husband’s death, continued to be wife under law—Succession certificate cannot exclude such a widow solely on basis of unperfected talaq.