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
Limitation in suit of recovery of dower amount
Section 5 of family court act…. Article 49 of Limitation Act 1908, suit for recovery of dower—- Limitation— Three years limitation period had been provided for a suit for recovery of dower…
2016 CLC 313 Islamabad
Limitation in suit of recovery maintenance
Article 120 of Limitation Act 1908, section 5 of family court act,…. Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance— Limitation period of six years from the accrual of right to sue had been provided for recovery for the recovery of maintenance allowance..
2016 CLC 313 Islamabad