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

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

IN CONJUGAL RIGHTS SUIT WIFE SEEKS RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE AND DOWER

IN CONJUGAL RIGHTS SUIT WIFE SEEKS RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE AND DOWER
Section 9(1a(1b) family court Act 1964…suit for restitution of conjugal rights by husband…. Wife seeking recovery of maintenance and dower in written statement…… Admissibility…. Obligations of husband to pay dower… scope.. Question was whether separate suit was required by wife for recovery of maintenance and dower… Petitioner/husband contended that wife in her written statement in family suit could claim dissolution of marriage only…. Respondent/wife contended that no separate suit was required for her claims of recovery of dower and maintenance allowance of minor… validity… under subsection 1a and 1b of section 9 of family court act 1964 either party could submit his/her claim in written statement…. Though in sub section (1b) the relief of only dissolution of Marriage including khula was mentioned as a claim to be set up by the wife, however in said sub section the word “including Khula “ was used which had enlarged its scope… Merely specifying the word dissolution of marriage including khula would not mean that wife could claim only such relief in her written statement but the word including used in section 9(1b) of Family Court Act, 1964 would enlarge it scope and the wife was not supposed to file separate suit for maintenance allowance of minor etc, instead all such claims could be joined in written statement… words used in the concluding para of sub section (1b) was also very relevant which supported the case of the wife. i.e. Shall be deemed as plaint and no separate suit shall lie for it. And it further strengthened the case of the wife, and whatever she claimed in her written statement would be considered as if she had filed a separate suit to such effect…. Father was morally and legally bound to maintain the children and he could not escape from the liability on any pretext even if the custody of the minor was with the mother… claim of dower of the wife was based upon a dower deed duly proved in the evidence and never rebutted in clear terms by the husband… payment of dower was obligatory upon husband which was the entitlement of wife as consideration of the marriage…Husband on contacting second marriage without permission of first wife or Arbitration council become liable to pay to first wife entire dower amount either prompt or deferred.. No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellant court, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
2018 CLC 887 (Peshawar)

Visiting Rights of father with minor at house

Visiting Rights of father of minor at house
Section 12 of Guardian and Ward Act 1890 visitation right of father of minor—court premises as meeting place of the minor with the father—effect—welfare of minor— scope—petitioner/father contended that family court had rightly allowed him to take his minor daughter of his house on (certain) special days—respondent/mother contended that appellate court had rightly set aside schedule arranged by Trial court as father should meet minor within court premises— Validity—father might disentitle himself to custody on account of his conduct but father. In the present case, was regularly depositing the maintenance allowance of his minor daughter as fixed by the court—Minor daughter in her tender age required love and care of her parents, deprivation of any of them would have negative effect no only on her mental growth but would also affect her intellectual development—neither the minor nor the father could be deprived of company of each other—father being natural guardian was not only required to participate in the upbringing of the minor should also develop love, bondage and affinity with her, to achieve said purpose—court was to facilitate a congenial homely and friendly environment and reasonable visitation schedule—office of the Guardian judge or office of civil Nazir of the court for the said purpose was neither conducive nor effective which lacked proper facilities and arrangement and was not comparable to a homely environment—meeting in court premises could not serve the purpose of meeting, and it was not in the interest or welfare of the minor to hold meeting in the court premises—meetings of the minor with the father were preferably to the held at the residence of the father—high court set aside the impugned order passed by the appellate court and rescheduled the more flexible arrangement of meeting of minor with the father on special days and on every Saturday of the calendar month with arrangements that civil Nazir or a bailiff be deputed by the trial court ot collect the minor from the residence of the mother at 10.00 AM along with a representative of the father take her to residence arranged by the father and thereafter along with representative of mother collect her from the father on the same day and drop her back at the residence of mother.. Such arrangement would remain in vogue till the minor daughter was five years of age or admitted to school—constitution petitioner was disposed off accordingly
PLD 2018 Baluchistan 44