Parsi Dissolution of Marriage on Ground of desertion

Parsi Dissolution of Marriage on Ground of desertion
Section 24 and 32(g) of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936.. Grounds.. Desertion by husband— wife had applied for divorce on the ground that the husband had desertion her for last seven years—- Both the husband and wife came to an understanding that their marriage may be dissolved as they no longer wished to remain in matrimonial tie— delegates appointed by consent of both parties also unanimously expressed their option that the marriage by ve dissolved on the ground of desertion—-husband and wife both decided to have the joint custody of their daughter hence no order in such regard was required to be passed keeping in view the consensus between the parties— Marriage between the parties was dissolved accordingly
PLD 2018 Sindh 492

Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid

Gift depriving other legal heirs is invalid
Islamic Law… Inheritance… gift(Hiba-bil-Iwaz)—disinheritance of legal heir due to disobedience—scope—plaintiff was deprived of his legal share from the inheritance due to disobedience and gift mutation was made in favour of defendants—suit filed by the plaintiff against the said mutation of gift was decreed concurrently— validity— plaintiff was deprived from the inheritance of his father due to disobedience to hold the impugned gift as valid has no sanctity nor on this sole object lawful heirs could be deprived from inheritance—Muslim owner could validly transfer his property only through the mode recognized by Islam and not otherwise— Muslim could gift away his property to anyone but in case transfer was made with intent to deprive the heirs of their of inheritance on the ground not recognized by law then same would be void— Impugned gift was made by the father in his life time in favour of defendants. i.e. daughter to deprive the son from inheritance on negative reason which was forbidden under the law— Object of donor in the present case was to deprive the plaintiff of his legal share in his property— findings recorded by the courts below with regard to plea of “aaQ” ( EXCLUSION FROM INHERTANCE) taken by the defendants were based on proper declaration that impugned mutation was invalid on that ground—impugned gift was Hibba-bil_Awez fro an amount of Rs.200,000 and plaintiff would be liable to return the said amount to the defendants—no other illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below… Revision was dismissed in circumstance.
2018 CLC 1535 Balochistan
2005 SCMR 135
PLD 2006 SC 15
2002 SCMR1938

Pakistan Citizenship by Birth

Citizenship by Birth
Section 4 Pakistan Citizenship, NADRA ordinance section 9 and 10. Citizenship by Birth.. Nationality, award of — Authorities declined to issue computerized National Identity Card to Petitioner on the ground that his parents were Somalian Nationals— Plea raised by petitioner was that he as born educated and was residing in Pakistan— validity—No restriction existed on any individual who was born in Pakistan, despite the fact that his parents were no citizenship of Pakistan—such individual could apply for grant of citizenship by birth in terms of section 4 of Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951,,, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan was competent authority to process the case by virtue of Application Forms in prescribed manner and an applicant was to submit details as required in said document.. Any foreigner non-citizen of Pakistan or person from any other State born in Pakistan except a refugee was entitled to the dealt under Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 subject to his claim if her/she fell within five concept provided under Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 for seeking Citizenship of Pakistan— High Court directed the petitioner to approach Federal Government along with application Form duly filled in where after the authorities would decide his application in accordance with law—constitution Petition was allowed accordingly.
2018 CLC Islamabad 1588

Restriction on movement of minor

Restriction on movement of minor
Section 17 of Guardian and ward act…. Restriction on movement of ward/minor—direction by trial court not to remove the minor from the jurisdiction of the court— Legality—- welfare of minor—scope—while dismissing the application of father for permanent custody the trial court directed both the parties not to remove the ward from the jurisdiction of the court and to deposit the passport of the minor—Appellant court upheld the order of trial court on the basis that if the minor was removed from the jurisdiction of the trial court, the father would be deprived of visitation rights and would be seriously prejudiced. Held… that visiting rights of the father was only a part that played a role in the welfare and well-being of the child but it did not form the entire ingredient or composition oin the upbringing and grooming of the child…. Minor belonged to a family which could afford a better upbringing, education and environment either in Pakistan or anywhere in the world—courts below should not have seen welfare of the minor only from the angle that the father would miss his opportunity to see his child but it also had to be seen whether a ward who was capable of studying abroad, in case opportunities were available to him should be deprived on account of the fact that father must not miss his visiting opportunities – every child has its own peculiar circumstances and his welfare demand may vary – restriction on movement in the present case, appeared to be tool of settle core with the mother but it would not serve the welfare of the minor— High court set-aside the restrictions on movement of the ward and directed that the passport should be returned to the ward that the ward was at liberty to travel and to be admitted in any best available educational institution, be it is Pakistan or foreign country as desired by the mother however the selection of the institution shall be subject to approval and permission of the father that the father shall not be unreasonable in issuing no objection to the admission of the ward to any school, college or university , that any movement of the ward away from the foreign country where the mother desired to take the child for educational benefit or change of school and college etc. within or outside the foreign country, shall be subject to permission of the father, however he should not be unreasonable in considering such request or change of institute and should not withhold such permission in case it was meant for the welfare of the ward, that father was a liberty to visit the ward at least once in 15 days and or as many days as agreed between the parents, that insofar as the winter or summer vacations were concerned, father had to right to be with his son and father may travel to him, if he desired to spend vacation for any period which may not exceed 30 days during summer vacation and 15 days during winter vacations or the parties may set a schedule annually on such terms and conditions as they deemed fit and proper—constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly
2018 PLD Sindh 377

Damages for Breach of Contract

Damages for Breach of Contract
Common law damages for breach of contract—Principle such damages were intended to place the claimant in the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. Such damages were therefore normally based on the difference between the effect of performance and non-performance upon the claimant’s situation—where the breach of contractual obligations had caused the claimant to suffer loss, that loss should be measured or estimated as accurately and reliability as possible—Law tolerated imprecision and there were different legal principles which could assist in estimating the claimant loss- contract law damages could not be awarded merely for the purpose of depriving the defendant of profits made as a result of the breach except in exceptional circumstances—contract law damages were not a matter of discretion. They were claimed as of right and were awarded for refused on the basis of legal principles.
(2018 SCMR 1057 Supreme Court of UK)