Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)- -S. 5-Filing of appeal, delay in-Condonation of delay-Sufficient cause-Responsibilities of the litigant-Ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned was that counsel of the appellant was hospitalized who later passed away-Record revealed that the appellant/ petitioner applied for certified copies to assail impugned judgment after expiration of the prescribed period of limitation, and the appeal was barred by about seven and half months-No explanation was presented by the appellant/petitioner other than the assertion that the case file was returned to him by the family members of the deceased counsel after seven months of passing of judgment and he came to know about the judgment (to be assailed) on receiving notice issued by the Executing Court-It is the duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently and vigilantly, and to keep track of his cause on regular basis by inquiring its progress from his counsel at every stage of the case and after every date of hearing-In the present case, the appellant had admitted that his counsel had serious health issues since quite some time; accordingly, it was his duty to make some alternate arrangement either by engaging a new counsel or by appearing in person, however, he chose not to do so-It was not the case of the appellant that his counsel was on general adjournment on the relevant dates nor had any intimation in said behalf been filed by him-Moreover, appellant did not make any effort to inquire about the progress or fate of the suit-Appellant had not disclosed a specific date on which he received the case file-Furthermore the appellant took a month or so after receiving the file, for which no valid explanation had been offered-Thus, the so-called explanation offered by the appellant did not appear to be convincing or sufficient for the High/Appellate Court to exercise its discretion for condoning the unusual delay of seven and half months-Number of days by which the appeal was barred by time had not been disclosed in the application, nor the delay of each and every day had been explained therein-Thus, the delay in filing the appeal remained unexplained and as such could not be condoned, for having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, which had created valuable right in favour of the respondents-No sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation-Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resultantly the appeal was also dismissed Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another PLD 2008 SC 462 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

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)