Summary: (a) Muslim Personal Law --- Essentials of valid marriage (Nikah) --- Proof of marriage --- Appointment of Wali --- Consent --- Jactitation of marriage --- A suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by a woman claiming that her purported marriage with the appellant was fictitious and unsubstantiated. The appellant contended that a valid nikah had been solemnized on 08.10.2017 by the respondent’s father (acting as her Wali), further delegating the authority to a religious Pir. The Supreme Court held that for a valid Muslim marriage, there must be proposal and acceptance in one meeting before requisite witnesses. The Court found that the father was abroad at the time of the alleged nikah, and no credible evidence was produced regarding his delegation of authority. Neither the father nor the alleged delegate (Pir) testified. The Court ruled that the essential elements of a valid nikah were not satisfied, and mere documentation—unsubstantiated by evidence—was insufficient. A woman of sound mind and age of puberty may enter into a marriage of her own choice without consent of a wali. In the absence of conclusive evidence proving a valid first marriage, the respondent’s later marriage with a person of her choice was held valid and protected under Islamic and constitutional principles. (b) Constitution of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, 1974 --- S. 3-G --- Right to life, liberty, and dignity --- False claims of marriage --- Protection of individual autonomy --- The Court observed that attempts to forcibly link a woman to a marriage not established under law or Shariah violate her constitutional rights under S. 3-G of the Interim Constitution, 1974. The case involved deliberate harassment of the respondent by fabricating a marriage claim to obstruct her subsequent valid marriage. The Court emphasized that in cases involving personal liberty and reputation, the burden of proof lies heavily on the party asserting a prior legal marriage. Failing such proof, the constitutional guarantee of dignity and personal liberty must prevail. (c) Family Courts --- Jurisdiction --- Determination of territorial jurisdiction --- Concurrent suits and consolidation --- The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court Muzaffarabad on the ground that the parties belonged to Hattian Bala. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s own suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Hattian Bala had already been dismissed with no appeal filed. While the Family Court should have consolidated both suits to avoid conflicting decrees, no grievance was raised in higher forums, and both parties failed to pursue the matter properly. The objection to territorial jurisdiction was thus found to be unfounded and academic. (d) Evidence --- Standard of proof in matrimonial disputes --- Production of attested documents --- Adverse inference --- The Court found that the appellant failed to produce original or attested copies of critical documents, including records of population and prior litigation. The non-production of essential witnesses—particularly the alleged wali and nikah registrar—was fatal. Bogus or unverified documentation presented by both parties was viewed critically. The Court emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, independent corroboration is vital, especially where serious consequences such as criminal charges or reputational harm may follow. Cited Cases: PLD 1982 FSC 42 Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jehangir [PLD 2004 SC 219] Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Khaliq [2019 SCR 339] Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of Family Court and Shariat Appellate Bench upheld. Respondent released from shelter home and permitted to live with her legally wedded husband.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Against impugned orders dated 28.6.19 passed by learned ADJ-West, ICT, whereby appeal against judgment & decree dated 7.3.19 passed by learned Judge Family Court-West has been dismissed (Suit for dissolution of marriage/Khullah)

Summary: Longstanding entries in record of rights in favour of person cannot be brushed aside simply by submitting an application to the revenue officer and that too without giving him an opportunity of being heard.Correction:- it is rectification of an error in a register of instrument, e.g a conveyance or settlement, on the ground of mutual mistake, i.e clerical mistake or an error in draftsmanship. The court may, in such a case, in its discretion, allow the instrument to be rectified.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Fixation of appointment criteria is essentially an administrative matter falling within the exclusive policy making domain of the government and interference in such matter by the courts is not warranted. Temporary appointment would always be subject to verification of character and antecedents --- The petitioner argued that his termination from service was improper since, as a driver in BS-04, his services, amounting to 5 years, could not be terminated without a regular inquiry. The respondent authorities contended that the petitioner's appointment was not proper, as he lacked the necessary qualifications.The petitioner had been appointed as a driver on a contract basis, and the controversy arose regarding the validity of his appointment, specifically concerning his possession of an LTV driving license and two years' driving experience. The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner lacked the required qualifications at the time of his initial appointment and that subsequent acquisition of the necessary qualifications did not cure this defect.The judgment emphasized the conditions set in the advertisement for the driver's post, the subsequent issuance of the appointment letter, and the respondent's argument that the petitioner's lack of basic qualifications rendered his appointment void. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization based on his five years of service, stating that the lack of basic qualifications could not be cured by subsequent acquisition.The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract and the petitioner failed to establish any triable issues. It upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, stating that the appointment against the prescribed criteria was not sustainable. Therefore, the constitutional petition was deemed devoid of force and dismissed.

Summary: Petition seeking the recovery of her minor daughter, Mst. Sana Fatima, from the alleged improper or illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 8. The petitioner had previously filed a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, which was dismissed on 02.01.2020.The petitioner, who is the mother, argued that she was divorced by respondent No.5 in 2015 when Mst. Sana Fatima was just three months old. Despite a decree in her favor for the recovery of maintenance allowance for the minor, respondent No.5 avoided legal responsibilities and became a fugitive from the law. Warrants of arrest were issued against him during execution proceedings.The court heard arguments from both parties, and after considering the facts, it was noted that prior to the disputed date of 21.12.2019, Mst. Sana Fatima was not residing with her father (respondent No.5) and was not being maintained by him since 2015. The court acknowledged the differing stances on the change of custody but emphasized that the petitioner, as the mother, had the primary right to the custody of the minor.The court allowed the writ petition, granting interim custody of Mst. Sana Fatima to the petitioner. However, it also specified that respondent No.5 could continue to seek permanent custody through the competent Guardian Court. The order emphasized that the observations made in the order were specific to the present case and should not influence the proceedings in the Guardian Court.

Summary: Background:Atta Ullah was arrested under FIR No.98/2019 for possession of 1000 grams of charas. The police raided his house without a search warrant based on information received. Atta Ullah claims innocence, arguing that the raid was illegal and the quantity of charas found falls within a borderline case under Section 9 of CNSA (Control of Narcotics Substances Act). He also mentions his medical condition, hepatitis B, as a reason for seeking bail.----Issues:Was the police raid conducted legally, considering the absence of a search warrant?Does the quantity of charas found qualify as a borderline case under Section 9 of CNSA?Is Atta Ullah's medical condition a valid consideration for granting bail?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the police raid on Atta Ullah's house without a search warrant violated procedural requirements.The court determined that the quantity of charas found fell within a borderline case under Section 9 of CNSA, warranting further inquiry into guilt.Atta Ullah's medical condition, hepatitis B, was deemed a valid consideration for bail.As a result, the court granted Atta Ullah post-arrest bail upon the condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Vacational/Duty Judicial Magistrate at Chilas.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 2008 SC 376: The court referenced this case to support the argument that police raids without search warrants violate constitutional guarantees of privacy and dignity.

Summary: Summary pending