Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----Territorial jurisdiction---Family Court, Kohat---Earlier objection to territorial jurisdiction already disposed of by consent before High Court without disturbing order of Family Judge regarding jurisdiction---Effect---Petitioner/husband again assailed territorial jurisdiction of Family Judge, Kohat and consequently jurisdiction of Additional District Judge, Kohat---Held, that in an earlier round of litigation the same objection had already been raised and the matter had been disposed of by consent by Peshawar High Court without disturbing the order of Family Judge, Kohat on territorial jurisdiction---Such order had attained finality and could not be re-opened in subsequent proceedings. (b) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 33---Family appeal---Powers of appellate court---Cross-objections held not maintainable---Whether appellate court could still modify decree in favour of wife and minor child---Scope---Appellate Court had held cross-objections filed by wife and daughter to be not maintainable, yet modified decree by increasing maintenance and awarding balance haq mehr---Held, that though S.17 of Family Courts Act, 1964 excludes applicability of CPC except provisions specifically made applicable, such exclusion was intended to avoid technicalities and ensure expeditious settlement of family disputes---Preamble of Family Courts Act, 1964 showed that its object was expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs---Wife, former wife, child or children could not be disentitled merely because Family Court failed to pass an order which ought to have been passed in their favour---Appellate Court, in exercise of inherent appellate powers, could correct such omission---Even under formal and stricter procedure of CPC, O. XLI, R. 33 empowered appellate court to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed and such power could be exercised in favour of respondents or parties even where they had not filed an appeal. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----Haq mehr---Claim disallowed by Family Court---Appellate Court awarding five tolas gold as balance haq mehr---Jurisdiction and factual determination---Family Judge had disallowed wife’s claim to haq mehr, but Appellate Court found the claim established by evidence and awarded five tolas of gold as balance amount of haq mehr---Held, that no reason had been advanced to show that such factual determination by Appellate Court was illegal or wrong---Appellate Court had jurisdiction to award haq mehr where the claim stood established from evidence. (d) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----Maintenance---Annual increase---Inflation---Appellate Court increasing maintenance by ten percent annually---Validity---Family Judge awarded maintenance to former wife till expiry of iddat and to minor daughter at fixed monthly rate---Appellate Court increased monthly maintenance by ten percent every year---Held, that although Appellate Court did not expressly state its reason for annual increase, it was reasonable and logical to assume that increase was granted to cater for inflation---Increase of maintenance by ten percent annually was within discretion and jurisdiction of Appellate Court---Such increase was comparable to prevailing and historical rate of inflation. (e) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----Maintenance of wife/former wife and minor child---Husband’s duty to disclose income---Non-disclosure of salary and earnings---Adverse inference---Petitioner/husband was employed with Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission but did not disclose his position, salary or earnings while contending that maintenance awarded may be beyond his means---Held, that attempt at intentional non-disclosure was deprecated---Where husband/father is required to maintain wife, former wife during iddat period, or child, and is required to pay maintenance including arrears, his present and past earnings must be disclosed because his financial status determines quantum of maintenance---In case of non-disclosure, adverse inference could be drawn against him---Family Judges should try to ascertain salary and earnings of husband/father required to pay maintenance---Willful non-disclosure suggested that awarded maintenance was within his means. (f) Family Courts Act, 1964--- ----Maintenance and legal dues of former wife and child---Conduct of husband---Needless litigation---Petitioner/husband challenged appellate and High Court judgments despite not disclosing income and despite maintenance being awarded for former wife and minor child---Held, that his conduct showed that he did not want to be fair and had unnecessarily embroiled his former wife and child in needless litigation---Objective behind assailing judgments appeared to be to starve needs of his own child and legal dues of his former wife---Such conduct was unconscionable and inexcusable. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal was held bereft of any reason for grant of leave; leave to appeal was declined and petition was dismissed with costs throughout in favour of Mst. Samro Begum.

Summary: The petitioners, sought the jurisdiction of the court to entertain their plea concerning the custody of two minor daughters, who were born in Karachi and were residing there. The petitioners claimed that the Family Court in Peshawar had no jurisdiction to entertain the case related to the custody of minors permanently residing in Karachi. The Family Court had assumed cognizance of the case and passed orders for interim custody in favor of the respondent, which the petitioners contended were illegal and beyond the court's lawful authority. They contended that the court in Karachi should have jurisdiction over the matter. The court observed that there were certain admitted facts, including the Nikah Nama (marriage contract) and marriage registration certificate, which showed that the petitioner/husband had a permanent address in Peshawar, and the respondent/wife also had a residence in Peshawar. The court referred to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, which lay down provisions for the jurisdiction of the Family Court. It noted that the Family Court in Peshawar had jurisdiction to entertain matters related to custody of children and visitation rights of parents if the cause of action wholly or partially arose within its jurisdiction, or if the parties last resided together in that jurisdiction. Additionally, if a suit for the dissolution of marriage also included claims mentioned in the proviso to section 7(2) of the Act, such as custody of children, then the Family Court would have jurisdiction over those claims as well. The court found that the respondent/wife ordinarily resided in Peshawar, and both parties had permanent residences there. Therefore, the Family Court in Peshawar had jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon the respondent's suit for custody of the minors and other related claims. The court dismissed the writ petition as it lacked merit.

Summary: Background:Saif-ur-Rehman, the appellant, and Respondent No.3 were married, but their matrimonial relationship ended in dissolution. Respondent No.3 filed a suit for the dissolution of marriage and for the return of dowry articles. The suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed, and the marriage was dissolved. Another suit for the return of dowry articles was also decreed, with the amount initially set at Rs. 25,000. Respondent No.3 appealed this decision, and the appellate court enhanced the amount to Rs. 4,00,000. Saif-ur-Rehman then filed a writ petition, which led to the reduction of the dowry amount to Rs. 3,00,000. Saif-ur-Rehman appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to enhance the dowry amount.Whether the wife's right to appeal is curtailed under Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, if the amount awarded is less than the specified limit.---Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court held that the appellate court had the jurisdiction to enhance the dowry amount. Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, curtails the husband's right to appeal if the amount awarded is less than the specified limit. However, this provision does not extinguish the wife's right to appeal if she is dissatisfied with any decree in a suit for dower or dowry. The Court emphasized the gender-sensitive nature of the Family Courts Act and the need to interpret it liberally to advance its beneficial objectives.---Outcome:The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.---Precedents/Citations:Tayyaba Yunus v. Muhammad Ehsan (2010 SCMR 1403)Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Alipur (2006 SCMR 100)Ghulam Rasool v. Senior Civil Judge (PLJ 2008 Lahore 531)Saeeda Alia v. Syed Ghulam Mursalin Naqvi (2004 MLD 306)Mst. Neelam Nosheen v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan (2002 MLD 784)---Quote:The only possible purposive, beneficial and rational interpretation of Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act is that the right of appeal of a husband against whom a decree has been passed is curtailed. However, in no event, the right of the wife to file an appeal is extinguished if she is dissatisfied with any decree in a suit for dower or dowry.

Summary: The petitioner wanted to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by lower courts regarding the dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, and dowry articles. The lower courts had ruled in favor of the respondent No.1, upholding her claims for certain items and dismissing the petitioner's claims.The petitioner argued that the lower courts did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the family suit, citing an order dated 10.12.2013. However, it was revealed that the petitioner had concealed information about the same order and an appeal against it, which was dismissed on 15.05.2014. The petitioner also alleged misreading of evidence and sought the return of various items, including bridal gifts.In response, the respondent No.1's counsel argued that the lower courts had correctly decided the case, and there was no misreading of evidence. They also pointed out that the petitioner's conduct in concealing information was questionable.The judge reviewed the arguments and found that the petitioner failed to establish any justifiable infirmity in the lower courts' judgments. The judge noted that the petitioner's conduct before the court did not entitle him to any discretionary relief. Consequently, on 20.02.2018, the judge dismissed the petition and the associated application.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5, Sched.---Dissolution of marriage on basis of 'khula'---Dower (haq-mehr), return of---Scope---Where wife obtained decree for dissolution of marriage on basis of khula, it was subjectto return of dower amount and she subsequently could not claim it as of right---In case of khula,wife would have to either remit the dower amount, if she had not received it or pay back thesame to the husband if she had received it.Mst. Saeeda Javed v. Javed Iqbal and 2 others PLD 2013 Pesh. 88 ref.(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)------S. 10(4)---Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), Ss. 2(ii) & 2(iv)---Dissolutionof marriage on basis of 'khula'---Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 was applicable tothe dissolution of marriage on basis of "khula" and not to dissolution of marriage on the groundsavailable to a wife under Ss. 2(ii) & 2(iv) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

Summary: ''Wife is not supposed to file separate suit, when the husband took lead in filling a suit for conjugal right, she can claim all the relief in the written statement, as provided in schedule of section 5 of the Family Court Act 1964, her claim in written statement will not necessarily be restricted to mere dissolution of marriage and Khula, the word 'including' used in section 9A of the Act ibid has enlarged its scope. ''

Summary: Under section 10 (4) of ibid Act, law has empowered the family court to grant a decree fordissolution of marriage keeping in view the nature of strained relationship of the spouses.

Summary: (a) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939: ----S. 2(ii)---Dissolution of marriage---Grounds for khula and cruelty---Adjustment of dowry articles against khula consideration---Scope and validity. The appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and non-payment of maintenance allowance. The Family Court decreed the suit based on these grounds, but the Shariat Court modified the judgment, dissolving the marriage on the ground of khula against the consideration of dowry articles. Held, khula is permissible when a wife seeks dissolution without valid grounds. However, in cases where cruelty or non-payment of maintenance is alleged and proven, dissolving the marriage solely on the ground of khula is questionable. Additionally, dowry articles cannot substitute maintenance allowance, as maintenance is a distinct right of the wife and a duty of the husband. The adjustment of dowry articles against khula consideration was deemed valid only because the value of dowry articles and gold ornaments (claimed as dower) was found to be equivalent. The appellant retains the option to reclaim dowry articles by returning the gold ornaments. (b) Family Law---Maintenance allowance---Entitlement and enforceability: A suit for maintenance allowance decreed by the Family Court remained intact as the respondent did not challenge this decree before the Shariat Court. Maintenance is an independent right of the wife and cannot be adjusted against khula consideration. The appellant is entitled to maintenance allowance as determined by the trial court until the expiry of the iddat period. ----Cited Cases: Mushtaq Hussain v. Province of Punjab through Collector Jehlum and 6 others [2003 MLD 109] Nishan Ali v. Sher Muhammad and 3 others [2004 MLD 1909] Zafar Ahmed Ansari v. Auqaf Department through Chief Administrator, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others [1996 CLC 892] ----Disposition: Appeal disposed of. Marriage dissolved on the basis of khula with consideration of dowry articles; maintenance allowance awarded until the expiry of the iddat period remains intact.

Summary: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)------Ss. 6, 8 & 9--Guardian and Wards Act, (VIII of 1890), S. 25--Constitution of Pakistan,1973, Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowryarticles, and maintenance allowance--Partly decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Petitionercontracted second marriage and filed guardian application--Dismissed--Challenge to--It is anestablished principle of law that father is a natural guardian of his minor child/children, butindeed Court has to be satisfied while appointing father as a guardian that welfare of minorlies in fact that he be appointed as a guardian and custody of minor be delivered accordingly--Mother is entitled to custody (Hizanat) of her male child until he has completed age of sevenyears and of her female child until she has attained puberty and right continues though she isdivorced by father of his child unless she marries a second husband in which case custodybelongs to father--In instant case, this para fully attracted because admittedly, minorAhmedullah is about 13 years old and after Nikah with a stranger she loses her right ofHizanat to extent of minor Bibi Marium

Summary: This Proviso is primarily is in consideration of the fact that Muslimwomen who file their respective suits for dissolution of marriages anddower amount shall also be in a position to avail the jurisdiction of locallimits where the (wife) ordinarily resides but that doesnt exclude thejurisdiction of the above two situations i.e. (a) and (b).