Marriage… run-away marriage… place of solemnization of nikah….. nikah khawan clarified in his statement that he performed nikah at his residence— according to the practice in vogue, nikah was either arranged in the house of bride, mosque or any wedding hall where the parties choose to celebrate their wedding, thus, solemnization of nikah in the house of nikah khawan especially in the wake of the fact that it was run-away marriage, could not be disbelieved….
section 5 Muslim family Law Ordinance 1961… nikahnama.. completion of entries in nikahnama by a person other than the nikah khawan was allowed.
2020 CLC 549 Lahore
Islamic Law… Nikah…
witnesses to the nikah not related to the bride…. only requirement of the law was presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses at the time of offer and acceptance irrespective of the fact that they were closely related to the parties or not…. furthermore since marriage between the parties in the present case was solemnized against wishes of their families it could not be believed that some immediate family members of the bride would have participated in the said marriage especially when there was great difference between the social/financial status of the parties…
ref… Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla Para No. 252
2020 CLC 549
Islamic Law…. Nikah…
No wakeel appointed for bride…. in the present case, the birde was well educated and more than 27 years of age at the time of nikah, thus she was competent enough to enter into nikah with any body according to her own whims even without intervention of a third person, in particular a wakeel….
2020 CLC 549 Lahore
(references… PLD 1981 FSC 308, PLD 2009 Lahore 549, PLD 2008 Lahore 479)
Islamic Law…. Marriage…. Nikah… Essential pre-requisites .. There ingredients of valid marraige were proposed, acceptance and presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses….
Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mullah Para No. 252 ref.
2020 CLC 549 (Lahore) Before Shujaat Ali Khan J.
Mst. Saman Naseer versus Additional District Judge Lahore and others
section 5 & 17, CPC section 11, suit for enhancement of maintenance allowance– second suit– Resjudicata– principle of — applicability— scope– Respondent filed suit for enhancement of maintenance allowance which was earlier fixed through a decree— trail court dismissed the suit whereas appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded teh suit for adjudication on merits— validity— family court act 1964 had not barred the filing of a second suit for enhancement of maintenance allowance—- second suit was only barred in cases where the matter was directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the parties— earlier suit was for recovery of maintenance allowance but issue regarding its enhancement was neither raised nor was considered in that suit and thus was not in issue— section 11, CPC did not bar any subsequent suit, which was filed only for enhancement of maintenance allowance– appellant court had rightly remanded the case to the trial court…
2020 CLC 320 Balochistan
2005 CLC 1913