Summary: "The plea of petitioner that decree for dissolution of marriage, etc. could not be passed against him unless reconciliation proceedings failed, was of no help to him as his correct address had been mentioned in the plaint and he despite service had not appeared." ----- (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ----S. 10(5)---Khula---Dissolution of marriage---Ex-parte decree---Jurisdiction of Family Court---Scope---Respondent-wife filed suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula before Family Court at Faisalabad, which was decreed ex-parte directing her to surrender 25% of her dower---Petitioner-husband challenged the decree, claiming lack of jurisdiction and improper service---Held, in family matters, the court within whose jurisdiction the wife ordinarily resides has jurisdiction to entertain suit for dissolution of marriage---Respondent in her plaint had specifically mentioned her residence as Faisalabad---Law does not require that the wife must reside for a particular period before claiming she ordinarily resides at that place---Intention to reside, duly recorded in the plaint, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction---Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction found baseless. Cited Case: • Mst. Yasmeen Bibi v. Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan PLD 2016 SC 613 (b) Family Courts Act, 1964 ----S. 9---Ex-parte proceedings---Service of notice---Scope---Petitioner objected to ex-parte decree on ground of non-service---Held, respondent had provided proper address of petitioner and notices were sent accordingly---Court recorded satisfaction regarding proper service before proceeding ex-parte---Non-availability of petitioner at the time of delivery does not invalidate service when address is correct and unchallenged---Court rightly recorded ex-parte evidence and proceeded with the suit in accordance with law. (c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ----S. 10---Reconciliation proceedings---Scope---Petitioner contended that Family Court erred by not conducting reconciliation proceedings before granting decree of khula---Held, reconciliation is a legal requirement only when the husband enters appearance---Where petitioner remained absent, failure to conduct reconciliation proceedings does not render proceedings void---Family Court acted lawfully in recording statement of wife regarding aversion and incompatibility and decreeing the suit on that basis. Disposition: Constitutional petition dismissed for being devoid of merit.

Summary: Regular first appeal, against judgment and decree dated 26.11.14

Summary: CPC. O. I R. 8Condition for representative suit are that persons in the same must be numerous, they must be interested in the suit, permission of the court must be obtained & notice must be given to the person whom the same was sought to represent.

Summary: Discussion on Sec.115 CPC, Suo motu revisional jurisdiction, exercise of Limitation could not be treated as a hindrance for exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction to remedy juridictional defect in judgment and decree passed by the Court below.Ss.2(2)(9), 33, Order XX rule 6 & 7. Judgment and decree meaning and scope. The decree had to follow the judgment explained. Court is bound not only to apply correct law but also to apply the law correctly.Mandatory or directory provision, determination of procedure, Word "shall" used in a provision of law.

Summary: The order pertains to the acceptance of an application under section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by respondents No. 2 to 7, leading to the acquittal of the said respondents in a case under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that instead of accepting the application under section 265-K Cr.P.C., the trial judge should have allowed the petitioner to present full-fledged evidence. The judge noted that the power can be exercised after hearing both the prosecutor and the accused, with reasons recorded, and only if the court concluded that there is no probability of the accused being convicted. The judge rejected the petitioner's contention, stating that the trial court's power under section 265-K Cr.P.C. is broad and can be exercised at any stage of the trial. The judgment also included a portion of the order under challenge, indicating that the trial judge based the decision on a proper appreciation of facts and law. The judge further discussed the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, stating that the petitioner must demonstrate that the order violates specified conditions, such as being without lawful authority, unsustainable due to improper exercise of jurisdiction, or in violation of a superior court's principle of law. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition, finding it lacking in force and not meeting the conditions necessary for interference.

Summary: The background involved a marriage, divorce, and a maintenance decree granted to the petitioner. The respondent claims ownership of attached property through an alleged agreement with the judgment-debtor. The Family Court decided to consign the execution petition to the record room pending a civil suit's outcome, a decision contested by the petitioners. The petitioner argued that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to stay execution based on a civil suit, while the respondent asserts the validity of the property transfer. The judgment ultimately finds the Family Court's order illegal, an error of jurisdiction, and declares both impugned orders annulled.

Summary: Background:Miss Nusrat Yasmin, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Peshawar, appealed against strictures recorded by the Peshawar High Court in its judgment dated 26.06.2014.The strictures were related to a case where Miss Nusrat Yasmin convicted two accused individuals despite the acquittal of their co-accused by the High Court.---Issues:Whether it is appropriate for a High Court to record judicial strictures against a judge of the District Judiciary in their judgment.Whether summoning a judge of the District Judiciary for public reprimand during judicial proceedings is appropriate.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that it is not appropriate for a High Court to pass strictures against a judge of the District Judiciary in its judgment.While the High Court has the authority to review judgments of lower courts, including those of judges of the District Judiciary, it should avoid passing strictures and instead address concerns through administrative disciplinary proceedings.Concerns about the conduct or performance of a judge should be addressed discreetly through administrative channels to maintain judicial propriety and dignity.The strictures recorded against Miss Nusrat Yasmin were expunged, and it was directed that they should not form part of her service record or influence any service matters.The judgment specifically pertains to judicial strictures passed by a High Court against a judge of the District Judiciary while they are performing their judicial function.---Citations/Precedents:AIR 1994 SC 1031(2008)17 SCC 538PLD 1996 SC 229High Court of West Pakistan Notification No. 111 S/IV-A.13 dated 14-10-1965Article 175 of the Constitution of PakistanArticles 202 and 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan---Quote:Strictures against a judge of District judicary

Summary: BackgroundYounus Hassan filed a writ petition under Article 71(2) of the Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009, seeking adjustment/upgrade of his pay scale from BPS 1 to BPS 9 against the vacant post of Nursing Assistant/Junior Medical Technician. He had been serving in the Health Department Astore since 2012 and was regularized in 2016, but he argued that he should be appointed according to his qualifications and duties.-----Issues:Whether Younus Hassan should be appointed against the post of Nursing Assistant/Junior Medical Technician (BPS 9) based on his qualifications and duties.Whether the writ petition is maintainable.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to appoint Younus Hassan against the post of Nursing Assistant or Junior Medical Technician (BPS 9) within two months.Qualifications and Duties: Younus Hassan had been serving as a Nursing Assistant/Junior Medical Technician since 2012 and had completed the required training courses. His experience certificate and salary slips supported his claim.Comparable Cases: The court noted that Younus Hassan's colleague, Yasir-Ud-din, had been appointed as a Junior Medical Technician (BPS 9) under similar circumstances. This established a precedent for Younus Hassan's appointment.Entitlement to BPS 9: Given his qualifications, duties, and the precedent set by similar appointments, the court determined that Younus Hassan was entitled to be appointed against the post of Nursing Assistant or Junior Medical Technician (BPS 9).The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to appoint Younus Hassan against the post of Nursing Assistant or Junior Medical Technician (BPS 9) within two months. Compliance was to be reported to the court through the Registrar.----Citations/Precedents:Office Order No. 2911/DHO/Estb/2011 dated 14th September 2012: Documented Younus Hassan's initial appointment.Salary Slip for the Month of February 2018: Supported Younus Hassan's claim of serving as a Junior Medical Technician.Experience Certificate issued by Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital Astore dated 15-7-2016: Confirmed Younus Hassan's duties and qualifications.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending