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)

LIMITATION OF GRANT AND REVOCATION OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE

LIMITATION OF GRANT AND REVOCATION OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE
Secession Act (XXXIX of 1925)
Section 372 and 383 — succession certificate, grant/revocation of — limitation period — no statutory period of limitation was provided for grant of any succession certificate under section 372 or its revocation under section 383 of the succession Act 1925 but even then it had to be availed within reasonable time.
2018 SCMR 762

No Necessary for every legal heir to appear before the court for succession

No Necessary for every legal heir to appear before the court for succession
Secession Act (XXXIX of 1925)
Section 372— inheritance—succession certificate, issuance of—scope— Not necessary for each and every legal heir to be properly represented and appear before the court to get a succession certificate— court on receiving such application had to issue/grant succession certificate in favor of all the legal heirs by considering and determining their respective shares by complying with the procedural requirement of law in such regard.
2018 SCMR 762

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

Consent of Husband on Dissolution of Marriage by way of Khula

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) Section. 5, Sched. & S.10—Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939), S. 2—Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula'—Scope—Consent of husband for such dissolution would not be necessary—Judge, in case of husband's dis-agreement to dissolve marriage, could determine question as to whether spouses, if they continued living together, could observe limits of God or not—Duty of Judge to make genuine attempt for reconciliation between spouses—Judge in case of failure of reconciliation efforts could pass forthwith decree for dissolution of marriage— Where Judge while passing such decree, observed that wife was not willing to live with husband without any fault of his, then Judge would have no option but to restore to husband dower (Haqe-Mehr) received by wife at time of marriage—Wife seeking divorce for having developed extreme hatred and disliking for her husband would have to restore the consideration of marriage (dower) to husband—Where in view of Judge husband by his arrogant, cruel and obnoxious nature or behavior compelled wife to seek "Khula", then she would be entitled to all due benefits along with dissolution of marriage

PLD 2013 Peshawar 12