Monday, 5 November 2012

Bail refused in case of prima facie involvement of accused


  Citation Name  : 2012  YLR  626     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : ABDUL LATIF
  Side Opponent : State



S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/392/365-B/34---Theft, robbery, abduction---Bail, refusal of---Abductee in her statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., had elaborately given the facts regarding robbery committed in the house, her abduction, asking her uncle for ransom for her release and repeated assaults of zina-bil-jabr on her by the accused---Accused being not known to the parents of the abductee, his name could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. and such fact had indicated absence of mala fides on the part of the complainant or his daughter---If abductee had married the accused for love and with free-will, her false name could not have been mentioned in the nikahnama ---Abductee was present in the court and she had clearly and categorically owned the contents of her statement made under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Accused, prima facie, was connected with the offence alleged in the F.I.R.---Bail was refused to accused, in circumstances.

Certified copy of Nikahnama


  Citation Name  : 2012  CLC  105     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA BEGUM
  Side Opponent : JANG BAZ

Rr. 8, 9 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.85 & 87---nikahnama , certified copy of---Admissibility in evidence---Scope---Duty of Nikah Registrar and system of remuneration payable to him would make him a 'public officer'---nikahnama being a public document could safely be relied upon---Such certified copy could be produced in evidence and would hold field in absence of rebuttal thereof.

Case of Prompt Dower

  Citation Name  : 2012  YLR  277     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : SHAMSHAD BIBI
  Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN



S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance and prompt dower in shape of gold ornaments entered in nikahnama or its alternate value---Dismissal of suit for recovery of maintenance and passing of decree for recovery of prompt dower by Family Court---Dismissal of plaintiff's appeal by Appellate Court---Validity---Defendant had not challenged decree for recovery of dower---Filing of suit by plaintiff for recovery of prompt dower was itself a notice of its demand from defendant and date of its demand would be date of institution of such suit---Defendant had not paid prompt dower to plaintiff, thus, she had a right to refuse to live with him till its payment to her and he was bound to pay her maintenance from date of its demand till its payment---Value of gold ornaments was mentioned as Rs.30,000 in nikahnama dated 25-8-2005---Alternate value of such gold would be fixed according to value prevalent at the time of institution of suit, which value would be determined by Executing Court---Plaintiff in plaint had claimed Rs.5,000 as monthly maintenance, while she in evidence had stated monthly income of defendant to be Rs.40,000/ 50,000---Defendant in his statement had not uttered a single word about his income---Defendant was working in Saudi Arabia, thus, Rs.1,000 per month would be sufficient for plaintiffs maintenance, which he was liable to pay from date of suit till payment of prompt dower to her---High Court modified judgments and decrees of both courts below accordingly.

Case of Prompt Dower

  Citation Name  : 2012  YLR  277     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : SHAMSHAD BIBI
  Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN



S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance and prompt dower in shape of gold ornaments entered in nikahnama or its alternate value---Dismissal of suit for recovery of maintenance and passing of decree for recovery of prompt dower by Family Court---Dismissal of plaintiff's appeal by Appellate Court---Validity---Defendant had not challenged decree for recovery of dower---Filing of suit by plaintiff for recovery of prompt dower was itself a notice of its demand from defendant and date of its demand would be date of institution of such suit---Defendant had not paid prompt dower to plaintiff, thus, she had a right to refuse to live with him till its payment to her and he was bound to pay her maintenance from date of its demand till its payment---Value of gold ornaments was mentioned as Rs.30,000 in nikahnama dated 25-8-2005---Alternate value of such gold would be fixed according to value prevalent at the time of institution of suit, which value would be determined by Executing Court---Plaintiff in plaint had claimed Rs.5,000 as monthly maintenance, while she in evidence had stated monthly income of defendant to be Rs.40,000/ 50,000---Defendant in his statement had not uttered a single word about his income---Defendant was working in Saudi Arabia, thus, Rs.1,000 per month would be sufficient for plaintiffs maintenance, which he was liable to pay from date of suit till payment of prompt dower to her---High Court modified judgments and decrees of both courts below accordingly.

Wife is entitled for maintainance even without rukhsati


  Citation Name  : 2012  PLD  245     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : Mst. SHAISTA SHAHZAD
  Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE



S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional Petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and additional amount stipulated in the nikahnama as payable to wife conditional in the case of divorce---Suit of wife (petitioner) was decreed to the extent of maintenance allowance only by the Appellate Court, and said order was assailed by both wife and the husband (respondent) in the constitutional petition---Validity---Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the wife's suit for recovery of additional conditional amount in case of divorce incorporated in the nikahnama --Wife's claim for dower amount was devoid of any force as the same had been categorically mentioned in the nikahnama as having been paid to the wife at the time of Nikah---Wife in her cross-examination had admitted that she never questioned the entries in the said nikahnama before any forum and the same had been duly signed by her---Plea of husband that the wife was not entitled to claim any maintenance allowance was devoid of any force as a valid Nikah under Islamic Law confers upon the wife the right of maintenance and imposed on her the obligation to be faithful and obedient to her husband for performance of her marital duties---Record showed that after the recitation of Nikah, the wife never refused to effect union and perform her marital obligations, rather the husband himself refused to obtain Rukhsati on the pretext that he had to complete his studies and ultimately divorced the wife---Courts below had rightly decreed that wife's suit for maintenance allowance from the date of Nikah till the date of divorce as well as for the period of Iddat --- No factual or legal infirmity having been found in the judgment and decree of Appellate Court, constitutional petition was dismissed.

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
Chairperson
International Lawyer
+92-333-5339880