Guardianship by Father

Guardianship by Father

Section 7 of Guardianship and ward act, Guardianship certificate—Father as guardian of person and property of minors –scope—No bar or restrictions was placed on father/natural guardians against obtaining a guardianship certificate from the court, however the circumstances and bona fides of father is obtaining such declaration /certificate needed to be examined keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case

2018 SCMR 427

Limitation of Recovery of Maintenance of wife and Children

Limitation of Recovery of Maintenance of wife and Children

Section 5and 9 family court act 1964 ,  Article 120 of Limitation Act 1908, Article 2-A and 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, Suit for recovery of Maintenance allowances of wife and daughter— Plaintiff/wife sought education, medical and expenditure of marriage of daughter and claimed maintenance for the last 30 years—- substance of marriage—scope— limitation, question of – Responsibility of husband toward wife and daughter— injunctions of Islam—scope—petitioner/husband contended that as wife had not been living hi is house so Appellant court had wrongly decreed past maintenance of wife for the last six years—validity—under Islamic law the husband was liable to maintain his wife and children from the very date when marriage was solemnized—- record proved that respondent/plaintiff was turned out of the house and subjected to cruel behavior by petitioner/defendant so many times but she joined the marital life on the intervention of Jirga and again due to his cruel behavior she was ousted form his house and she started living at her parents house for the last 30 years and was still there but the petitioner/husband had not divorced her and failed to maintain her and his daughter which was Zulm-eAzeem to the Muslim who lived under the protection of law—High Court observed that under Art. 2-A, of the constitution the Quran and Sunnah was the basic law of the land and section 9 of Muslim family Law Ordinance 1961 was a special law which did not presce3ive specific period of limitation for past maintenance— payment of maintenance ot the wife by her husband was governed by injunctions of Islam— petitioner/husband had not in the present case., paid any maintenance educational expenses marriage expenses for his daughter and maintenance allowance to his wife to meet daily needs life food and clothes etc. which was his duty to bear the provision of limitation prescribed under Art 120 of Limitation Act 1908 for recovery of past maintenance was not stricto sensu application—husband was responsible for the maintenance of wife from the day when the Nikah was solemnized and daughter when she was born—record showed that husband has admitted in the cross examination that he never paid any amount to his wife or his daughter—both courts below had erred by not considering the said admission by the husband wile decreeing the past maintenance for wife for past six years only— Husband was bound to pay the maintenance allowance for past 30 years to his wife and expenses claimed in the suit( marriage expenses of daughter etc)—- High court observed that great injustice had been caused to the wife and daughter of petitioner so despite the fact that respondent/wife had not challenge the judgment and decrees of courts below which might be due to economic constraints of neglected mother and daughter but High court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 was vested with jurisdiction to proved relief to party with whom injustice had been done so that judgment and decrees of the both courts below to the extent were set aside modified and the suit of plaintiff/respondent was decreed as prayed for

2018 YLR 128

DNA Test in Family Matter

DNA Test in Family Matter

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

2017 PLD Lahore 892

Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself

Counsel and Client

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.

2017 CLC 1736

Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause

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.

PLJ 2015 Islamabad 74

2013 YLR 375

2013 CLC 254

PLD 2006 Karachi 252

1974 SCMR 223