Bridal Gifts are unreturnable
Section 7 family court act 1964 section 2(a) of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restrictions) Act 1976—dissolution of marriage by way of khula—return of bridal gifts to husband—scope— petitioner/ex wife got decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula in consideration of her unpaid dower amount and contended that anything given by husband was to be considered as bridal gifts which were not liable to be recovered—respondent /ex husband contended that gold ornaments clothes and shoes given by him to the petitioner were returnable on dissolution of marriage — validity—section 2(a) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act 1976 defined bridal gift dower of dowry bridal gift presents or all other moveable property were the belonging of bride—Bride gifts given by husband were absolute property of wife and could not be snatched from her—under the Sharia, the marriage between a man and woman could be dissolved on the basis of Khula for which some consideration which was in the form of dower which the wife was entitled to received at the time of marriage or on demand was to be forgiven – in the present case only certain amount was mentioned in column No.13 of the nikah nama as dower money howler there was no mention of gold ornaments therein— consideration for marriage was dower amount which had not been paid to the wife—Petitioner wife had waived her dower amount in consideration of Khula which was enough— Appellant court had failed to consider such aspect of the case which was an illegality—Marriage on the basis of khula could be dissolved on the basis of dower mentioned in the column NO. 13 of Nikah nama—constitution petition was accepted accordingly
2017 YLR 1481
Section 10 Oral agreement of contract Act 1872, scope. oral contract is valid and enforceable but is requires strong and satisfactory evidence vis-à-vis its formations and contents— where a party seeks to enforce oral agreement, heavy burden lies on him to prove that the contact is concluded and term of oral contact where meant to be given effect to — where a contact is said to be made orally, ascertainment of its terms raises in first place pure question of fact what parties say—conditions of essential validity are (i) competent parties (ii) existence of consent of parties (iii) consent being free (iv) existence of consideration (v) consideration and object being lawful and (vi) agreement not being expressly declared to be void—No rigid or tenacious stipulation is imparted or divulged under section 10 of contact Act 1872 which may rationally exclude existence of oral contract from being enforced although in case of seeking enforcement of a specific performance or oral contact more satisfactory evidence is required to be led—agreement in writing is not necessary nor mandatorily required under provision of contact act 1872
2017 YLR 1579
Exit from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010
Rule 2 — Exit form Pakistan (control) Ordinance XLVI of 1981.. section 2 placing name of person on the Exit control list…. Ground – pendency of a criminal case.. Name of the respondent bad been placed on exist control list as she was nominated in a case of murder of accustoms officer in connection with smuggling of foreign currency— legality… notification/memorandum. whereby name of respondent was placed on the Exist control list, was issued purportedly for a reason which did not conform to the criteria as laid down in the exist from Pakistan Control Rules 2010 and the exist control policy. Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of a criminal case – Registration of an FIR had no nexus with and was extraneous to the object of the exits from Pakistan control ordinance 1981. Furthermore, while issuing the impugned notification/memorandum the Ministry of Interior had also overlooked an order of High Court whereby the said Ministry was restricted from placing the respondent’s name on the Exist control List has therefore rightly struck off the impugned notification/memorandum – Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly .
2017 SCMR 1179
EXECUTION OF DECREE PASSED IN UAE
Section 13 and 44-A CPC, Govt of Pakistan Law, Justice and Human Rights Division. Notification NO. SRO 208(I)/2007 dated 6-3-2007 Execution of decree passed by court in United Arab Emirates—Hierarchy of courts in UAE for purpose of section 44-A, CPC—scope—- UAE has been declared as a reciprocating state in context of section 44-A, CPC—Federal court of appeal in the UAE was a superior court for the purpose of section 44-A CPC— Decree in the present case, had been passed by the court of first instance in UAE which could neither be construed as court of appeal nor a superior court in terms of section 44-A CPC— Said decree thus could not be executed without having recourse to the process of section 13 CPC—Appeal was allowed accordingly with the observations that respondent was t liberty to institute a suit in terms of section 13 cpc
PLD 2017 SC 95
Enhancement of minor Maintenance by filing application u/s 151 CPC
Section 5 of family court act 1964, civil procedure code u/s 151 , maintenance, allowance for minors, enhancement of family—family court, powers of —- scope— order for maintenance allowance for minors was passed by family court— mother of minors sought enhancement in maintenance allowance through filing an application under section 151 CPC before the family court— objection for the father that enhancement in maintenance allowance could only be sought by filing a separate suit— valid provision of civil procedure code 1908 were not stricto sensu applicable to the proceedings under the family courts Act 1964, as such the family court was competent to adopt its own procedure— family court had exclusive jurisdiction relating to maintenance allowance and the matters connected therewith— once a decree by the family court in a suit for maintenance allowance and the matters connected therewith—once a decree by the family court in suit for maintenance for minors was granted, thereafter, if the granted rate for monthly allowance was insufficient and inadequate in that case, institution of fresh suit was not necessary rather the family court may entertain any such application under section 151 CPC and if necessary make alteration in the rate of maintenance allowance— Objection was rejected accordingly..
2016 SCMR 1821