Summary: The petitioner claimed that the respondent left his house without notice and that he had custody of the children. The respondent filed a family suit for dissolution of marriage, but it was withdrawn after the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court due to the address mentioned in the suit.Subsequently, the respondent filed another family suit seeking dissolution of marriage and maintenance. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court again, stating that the respondent was not residing at the address mentioned in the suit. The petitioner also claimed that he had lost faith in the Family Court and accused it of bias towards the respondent.The petitioner appealed to the High Court seeking dismissal of Suit, arguing that it was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction and that the respondent was residing outside the territorial limits of the Family Court South. The court noted that the respondent's address had been verified by the concerned police station, which confirmed that she was indeed residing at the address mentioned in the suit. The court ruled that the Family Court South had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the respondent had the right to seek dissolution of marriage and related relief. The court concluded that the case should be decided on its merits. The petitioner's request for the dismissal of Suit was denied by the court, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: Non Payment of dower to wife is also a ground of cruelty, so a good ground for dissolution of marriage.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5 & Sched.---Family Courts Rules, 1965, R. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, Rr. 14 & 15---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles, dower andmaintenance---Allegation of cruelty---Scope---Dower amount still outstanding---Nonaffixation of thumb impression or signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and affidavit---Effect---Petitioner (husband) contended that earlier arbitrator was appointed who decided that dowryarticles in possession of either party would deem to be property of respective party and that therespondent (wife) had failed to prove that dower amount was outstanding---Petitioner objectedthat signature or thumb impression was not affixed by the respondent on the plaint and affidavit,thus her claim was liable to be dismissed---Respondent contended that two courts below hadrightly passed judgment and decree in her favour---Validity---Petitioner was mainly aggrievedfrom the judgment and decree to the extent of dower amount, dowry articles and maintenanceallowance---Question before High Court was whether respondent was entitled for doweramount, dowry articles and maintenance allowance since her departure from the house ofpetitioner---Held, as far as objection of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit withregard to non-affixation of thumb impression of the plaintiff on the plaint and affidavit wasconcerned, though in cross-examination respondent had admitted that she had not affixedthumb impression on the plaint and affidavit but in this regard the language of R. 4 of FamilyCourts Rules, 1965, requiring the signing, verification and presentation of the plaint wasidentical to the provisions of Rr.14 & 15 of O. VI, C.P.C.---Any omission or irregularity in thesigning and verification of the pleadings, and presentation of the plaint was rectifiable at asubsequent stage---Plaint could not be rejected and a suit could not be dismissed for any of theirregularities in performing certain acts---Omission or mistake to sign the pleadings was merelyan irregularity and could be cured/rectified subsequently at any stage---No dispute existedbetween the parties in respect of fixation of dower of Rs. 4,80,000/- at the time of marriage,because in the statement of petitioner before the Trial Court and one of his witnesses hadspecifically stated that Haq Meharwas fixed Rs. 4,80,000/- and also maintained the same duringcross-examination, so the findings of courts below regarding dower amount were in accordancewith law---Plaintiff though had failed to place on record any list or receipt of dowry articlesbut the petitioner during cross-examination had admitted certain dowry articles which werebrought by the respondent at the time of marriage so the findings of the courts below were inaccordance with law---Respondent wife had alleged cruelty and also urged that she wasexpelled by the defendant from his house in her own wear and since then she was residing withher parents---Two witnesses fully supported the statement of respondent, she thereforeestablished the cruelty on the part of her husband---Cruelty was not limited to physical beatingrather that could be either mental or even by conduct, so, when wife was abused, misbehavedand disrespected that was also "cruelty" and on the basis thereof she might refuse to live withher husband and was entitled to the maintenance allowance---Plea of husband that she left thehouse of her own was not understandable as how a wife having one child could adopt such anirresponsible behavior---Muslim wife was entitled to get maintenance as of right from herhusband---Plaintiff had attained the status of wife more than a decade ago before filing the suit---Divorce effected by Khula operated as a release did not effect the liability of husband tomaintain the wife during her Iddat---Even if Rukhsati had not taken place the wife was entitledto have maintenance from her husband during subsistence of marriage---No illegality orirregularity having been found by the High Court in the impugned judgments, constitutionalpetition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Pleadings------Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, R. 4--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. VI Rr. 14 & 15--Particulars of plaint--Production ofdocuments--Non signing and verification--Suit for dissolution of marriage and maintenanceallowance--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Challenge to--Any omission in the signing andverification of the pleadings and presentation of the plaint is rectifiable at a subsequent stage--A plaint cannot be rejected or a suit cannot be dismissed for any of the irregularities inperforming above said act. [P. 46] A2006 MLD 1752, PLD SC 491, ref.Cruelty------Define--Cruelty is not limited to physical beating rather can be either mental or even byconduct. [P. 48] BMaintenance------Muhammadan Law--Para 320--Muslim Family Act, 1964--S. 7 & 9--Divorce By Kula orMubaraat-Iddat--Maintenance allowance--Liability of husband--Validity--A divorce effectedby Khula or Mubara?at operates as a release by the wife of a dower but it does not effect theliability of the husband to maintain the wife during her iddat. [P. 48] C1999 CLC 160, 1988 CLC 2355, 1988 MLD 427, ref.

Summary: Background: Muhammad Hassan challenged Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, arguing that it is inconsistent with Islamic injunctions as per the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Section 8 deals with the dissolution of marriage otherwise than by talaq (divorce). The petitioner argued that the provision allows the wife to dissolve the marriage (through Khula) without returning the dower, which he claims contravenes Islamic principles. ----Issues: 1- Constitutionality: The petitioner argued that Section 8 is not in line with Islamic principles and sought its modification to ensure compliance with Sharia. 2- Specific Relief: The petitioner requested that the Court declare the Khula obtained by the respondent against the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that it should be set aside. Additionally, the petitioner sought the return of the wife to perform marital obligations under Islamic law. Court's Findings: 3- Jurisdiction Limitations: The Court highlighted that under Article 203-D and Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution, its jurisdiction is limited. It cannot examine provisions of Muslim Personal Law unless they are unanimously deemed against Islamic injunctions by all sects. The Court can only assess laws based on Qur’an and Sunnah, not on juristic opinions or personal grievances. 4- In Personam Relief: The Court emphasized that it cannot grant relief specific to individual cases in Sharia petitions. The Court’s role is to interpret laws in light of Islamic principles, not to address personal grievances. 5- Dower and Khula: The Court acknowledged that dissolution of marriage via Khula generally requires the return of the dower unless waived by the husband. However, it cannot amend the law or fill gaps; such tasks are within the Parliament's domain. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition as it did not fall within its jurisdiction to address individual grievances or modify the existing legal framework. The petitioner was advised to seek relief through appropriate channels if necessary.

Summary: Art 199 Constitution of Pakistan 1973S.14 (2)(a) W.P family court Act, 1964.compentency of appeal... if dissolution of marriage not absolute... case not hit by S. 14 (2)(a)ibid.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.7 & Schd.----Dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula---Ex parte decree---Scope---Husband (petitioner) contended that wife (respondent) had obtained Khula through court by exparte evidence which was based on mis-appreciation of law and facts---Respondent contendedthat petitioner lived abroad who had turned her out from his house fifteen years back---Validity---Requirement of law was to be satisfied that the spouses could not live as husband and wifewithin the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty---Maintaining limits ordained by Allah byhusband and wife---Scope---Limits prescribed by Allah would mean the directions regardinghappy social life---In the present case, respondent (wife) through ex parte evidence proved hercase that petitioner (husband) had failed to provide maintenance to her and the children for thelast 15 years and also had turned her out from his house---Fact that husband and wife had livedseparately for a long time without maintenance could be a strong factor to assess as to whetherthe spouses could live together within the limits ordained by Allah---Family Court had rightlyreached to conclusion in favour of grant of Khula on consideration, inter alia, of such factors---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.Mst. Khursheed Bibi v. Babu Muhammad Amin PLD 1967 SC 97 and Muhammad Rafiv. Attaullah Kauser and others 1993 CLC 1364 ref.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 10(4) & Schd. S.5---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 203-D & 203-G---Constitutionalpetition---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Scope---Dissolution of marriage---Petitionerchallenged the validity of S.10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 and impleaded the Parliament---Validity---Government, through Secretary concerned, was relevant if some legislation was inquestion---Vires of legislation could be subject to judicial review by Superior Courts, but suchpower was subject to jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution---In the present case,petitioner had questioned S.10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 alleging the same to becontrary to the Injunctions of Islam---Petitioner missed relevant provisions of the Constitutionwhich specifically placed bar on the jurisdiction of High Court in such matter---Article 203G ofthe Constitution placed a bar on jurisdiction of any court, including Supreme Court or HighCourt, to entertain any proceedings or exercise any power or jurisdiction in respect of any matterlying within the power or jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court---Article 203D of theConstitution dealt with the powers and jurisdiction vested with the Federal Shariat Court---Powerto examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law was repugnant toInjunctions of Islam or Holy Quran or Sunnah were included in Art.203-D of the Constitution---High Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.6.2014 was sought on the ground that there was no plea of Khulla by the petitioner rather the trial Court granted decree on the basis of Khulla subject to waiver of dower whereas in the case law (PLD 2013 Peshawar 12) referred to by this Court in its judgment the wife had herself sought dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khullah.Held. Decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khullah subject to waiver of dower was granted in favour of wife by the learned trial court on 13.12.2010 which was not challenged by her before this court and the same has attained finality and the point agitated by the petitioner has already been discussed in Para-6 of the judgment under review. Review petition was dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner had previously approached the Family Court for the dissolution of her marriage, as well as for the recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, and dowry articles. The Family Court had partially granted her requests in a judgment dated March 3, 2016. After the decision, the respondent, Abid Jameel, filed an application under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) alleging that certain receipts produced by the petitioner were forged. The application under Section 476 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Family Court on March 28, 2016, on the grounds that it was not maintainable.The petitioner challenged this order of the Family Court through a criminal revision, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge on October 22, 2016. However, the judge's decision to entertain the criminal revision was found to be erroneous, as it pertained to an order passed by the Family Court, which was not considered an inferior criminal court under Section 435 Cr.P.C. According to Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, decisions or decrees passed by a Family Court can be appealed to the High Court or District Court. Therefore, the criminal revision under Section 435/439-A Cr.P.C. was deemed inappropriate.The Court also observed that the order passed by the Family Court was to be challenged under Section 14 of the Family Court Act, as it related to a decision, which was not limited to decrees. Furthermore, the order did not conclude that the receipts were forged, which was a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 476 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that such proceedings should not be used as a tool for personal vengeance or settling personal scores. In the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of forgery, the Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.In summary, the Court found that the criminal revision was not maintainable, as it pertained to an order of the Family Court and not an inferior criminal court. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside, and it was determined that the proceedings under Section 476 Cr.P.C. were unwarranted in the absence of evidence supporting the forgery allegations. The Court emphasized the need for a proper legal basis for initiating such proceedings.