Summary: The case involved a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent, who were married in 1996 and had two children. The petitioner argued that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to give such a declaration as the Talak notice was withdrawn before it became effective. However, the court upheld the validity of the Family Court's decree, citing Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which states that Talak shall not be effective until 90 days after the notice is delivered to the Chairman. The court emphasized that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters related to dissolution of marriage, and any issues related to the termination of the marriage must be raised and adjudicated by the Family Court. The petitioner's claim that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction was dismissed. Additionally, the court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Family Court's decision was appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Writ petition was dismissed.

Summary: Ss. 9 (c) & 31 (B) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. Ss.63, 156 & 403 Cr.P.C---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.13---Closure of investigation--- Reinitiation of investigation---Not double jeopardy---Closure of investigation, would be considered as discharge from investigation.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.369 & 561-A---Qatl-i-amd---Review---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Accused was convicted by Trial Court under S.302(c),P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and also to pay Diyat amount to legal heirs ofdeceased---Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Judgment passed by Criminal Court could not be reviewed, altered or varied, excepthaving been passed beyond jurisdiction, or suffered from a patent illegality rendering thejudgment void or passed behind the back of a party by way of having been condemned unheard---Object of initiating criminal proceedings by prosecution against accused was to establish hisguilt and get him convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordancewith codified law and observance of law was the primary consideration in the process---In thepresent case, punishment not contemplated by law was awarded by Trial Court and maintainedby High Court and the same fell within the purview of patent injustice, absolute illegality whichnecessitated its review because an illegality could not be allowed to be perpetuated---Judgmentpassed by Trial Court and maintained by High Court was illegal, unlawful and withoutjurisdiction to the extent of liability of Diyat---Judgment was reviewed in circumstancesMuhammad Lal v. The State 2012 YLR 1771, held no more a good law. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1979; Muhammad Sharif v. The State2014 SCMR 668; Aftab Iqbal Khilji v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 518 and Nazak Hussain v. TheState PLD 1996 SC 178 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court can correct an error ofits judgment apparent on face of it but without going into re-examination of facts or making anattempt to arrive to any other conclusion, which may be possible on the basis of facts andcircumstances of the case---No one should suffer on account of an act of court.(c) Precedent-------Review of judgment---Effect---When judgment is reviewed, it is no more an authority on thesubject hence may not be referred to and relied upon to such extent.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending