Section 7 family court act, Art. 128 of Qanoon Shahadat order 1984—— DNA Test—Scope—Suit for recovery of dowry articles— Dower amount and maintenance for herself and for mniors was filed by respondent wife and the same was pending trail before family court— Petitioner/husband during pendency of the suit disowned two miors daughters and sought permission to condict DNA Test—Application of petitioner /husband was dismissed by family court as wella s by lower appellate court—Validtiy— Birth certificates of two minors girls were brought on record which depicted that both mionrs girls were born when plaintiff was legally wedded wife of the defendant and he did not dispute the same— Plea that minors girls were not born out of the wedlock of parties was raised for the first time in weitten statement—Nothing was brought on record from the side of petitoner/husband to establish that he had disputed legitimacy of children soon after their birth—Petitoiner /husband remained silent till he filed written statement in the suit. DNA Test was always conducted with the consent of the person concerned and no such consent was available. Once consent was not given DNA Test could not be conducted—High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two courts below. Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances
Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.
Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause
Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel
in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.
Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.
When wife Voluntarily Left the husband house she cannot claim maintenance
Section 5 sched .. cruel attitude was not confined only to the extent of physical violence but it would include mental torture hateful attitude of husband or other inmates of the house and also included the circumstances in presence of which wife was forced to abandon the house o her husband. Wife has failed to prove cruelty in the present case. Family court has correctly passed decree on the ground of khula. Husband was bound to pay maintenance charges to the wife till she was faithful to him and lived with im and if she had voluntarily left eh house of husband then she was not entitled to maintenance charges. Wife had voluntarily left the house of her husband and she was not entitled to maintenance charges. Dower once paid could not be demanded for second time. Appeal field bye wife was partly accepted to the extent of maintenance charges. Decree of maintenance charges passed by Shaiarat court was set aside