11 Nov In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of W. P. Family Courts’ Act, , the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to establish a Family. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 26 of the West. Pakistan Family Courts Act, (Act No. XXXV of ), the Governor of West Pakistan is. 28 Jun Nature and purpose of—Provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, were of a beneficial nature which had enlarged the scope of.
|Published (Last):||8 November 2008|
|PDF File Size:||20.4 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.58 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Statement of compromise was not denied by appellant which had also been signed by his counsel-Such statement was accepted by respondent and judgment and decree was passed accordingly-Law does not require that even for a compromise statement ,should be made by a party on oath–Judgment and decree of the Court which otherwise was possessed of jurisdiction to pass such a judgment and decree could not result in nullifying such proceedings merely because statement was not made on oath.
Dissolution of marriage  [including Khula ].
Principles of Civil Procedure Code, would, however, be attracted specially when there was no conflict between provisions of Civil Procedure Fsmily, and provisions of Family Courts Act, Evidence of special attorney on behalf of plaintiff: West Pakistan Act No. The off springs of such marriage are legitimate. Notification dated 5th April, is as under: Suit for maintenance by wife–Plea of divorce from specified date alleged by husband–No issue having been framed on that aspect, petitioner could not agitate such question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction.
The efforts towards conciliation have always been held to be persuasive and not compulsive. Change of forum —Suit for recovery of dowry articles was filed by wife in Civil court, prior to amendment in West Pakistan Family courts Wdst, —After the amendment, such recovery was included in the Schedule of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act,and the suit was decreed by family Court in favour of wife—Judgment and decree passed by Family Court was maintained by Appellate court as well as by High court—Plea raised by husband was that Family court had no jurisdiction over the matter as the same was filed before Civil Court—Validity—By the change of forum, nobody would have a vested right to a particular forum to try his lis—Change of forum was a procedural matter and the same operated retrospectively—Supreme court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
D P L D Kar. Such, however, much the same way as above adverted, could be overtaken on the basis of a mutual or bilateral arrangement between the spouses: A Family Court shall conduct hearing of the suits as expeditiously as possible and shall not adjourn hearing for a period exceeding seven days and shall dispose off the suit within a period of days from the date avt by the court for the appearance of the Defendant.
Principle of restitution is inherent in the exercise of judicial authority so that status quo ante can be required to be restored-Though provisions of Civil Procedure Code, do not apply to the family cases, the principles thereof, to the extent, that they are based on equity and good conscience, would apply. The question as to whether the Family Court is a Court also does not present any difficulty. Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Both Family Court and Appellate Court concurrently decreed suits filed by plaintiff. Validity of registered marriage. High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction had upheld judgment of Lower Appellate Court and dismissed Constitutional petition–Validity–Maintenance fixed by Courts below was proper and same was within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court and Lower Appellate Court–Petitioner could have challenged findings of Courts below in limited Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court only if he had succeeded in proving that findings of two Courts below were not based on any evidence or were based on total misreading of evidence–High Court had rightly dismissed Constitutional petition–Leave refused- PLJ SC Decree passed in and upheld by appellate Court–Respondent field suit for maintenance for her son, 4 daughters as well as for herself for iddat period Rs.
Suit for recovery of dower gold ornaments — Suit decreed by Family Court and upheld by Appellate Court—Validity—Appellate Court had appraised evidence in accordance with law—No irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in impugned judgment—Husband was reluctant to discharge his liability by way of returning fourteen Tolas gold ornaments—Such conduct of husband was not appreciable—High Court refused to accept prayer of husband and dismissed Constitutional petition.
Establishment of Family Courts. Ordinarily, a plaint in a suit for maintenance falls under section 7 i and iiCourt Fees Act and attracts ad valorem court-fee on the amount claimed to be computed in accordance with Article 1, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act.
Dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula –Wife seeking divorce, inter alia on ground of hatred towards husband–Five out of seven issues decided against wife–Such failure on her part to prove various issues in suit, held, did not necessarily mean that admitted rift between parties was w bout any cause because without cause there would not have been rift and parties would have been living together.
List of witnesses was not filed separately but the names of witnesses were mentioned in the body of plaint by the petitioner–Petitioner filed an application seeking permission to submit list of witnesses-Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that the same was not filed within seven days after the settlement of issues-Petitioners were not seeking the issuance of summons for the appearance of any witness rather they desired the Court to permit them to examine their witnesses whose names and addresses were already disclosed in the body of plaint-Validity-Parties had absolute right to produce any witness and it was incumbent upon the Family Court to examine such witnesses subject to the requirements of law.
THE WEST PAKISTAN FAMILY COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993
Recalling of order -Right of cross-examination of the respondent was closed by the Family Court and the order was recalled subsequently on application filed by the respondent-Validity-Such right of the parties was preserved under S. Family Court to exercise the powers of the Judicial Magistrate.
Matter was taken by the Courts below twice-No legal infirmity was found in. Family Court is neither arbitrary nor perverse, hence does not call for interference by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction—Writ Petition was dismissed. Chairman of Union Council cannot go behind decree granted zct Family Court–Chairman, after dissolution of marriage by Family Court, has to proceed in accordance with provisions of S.
Pak Law: Family Courts’ Act,
Interim order — Family Court while staying execution of decree directed petitioner to deposit Rs. The divorce becomes affective after the expiration of 90 days unless there is reconciliation between the parties within the said period. Power of Family Court to summon witnesses. Decree became final– Challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction–Pleas that petitioner husband being Qadiani his marriage with Muslim woman was void and he was not liable to maintain respondent-wife, a Muslim fmily, and Family Court had no jurisdiction, repelled, firstly, because this objection was taken for first time before High Court and secondly because petitioner had earlier described himself as Sunni Muslim by faith–Supreme Court agreeing that in writ jurisdiction petitioner could not be allowed to raise completely new pxkistan for first time before High Court, refused leave to appeal.
Stay of proceedings by the High Court and District Courts. Principle of res judicata–Applicability –Cause of action in such cases is of recurring nature-Previous withdrawal of suit does not operate as res judicata in such matters. Appraisal of evidence being function of Trial and Appellate Courts and findings thereon, reached on basis of record, more particularly concurrent findings, held, were not open to be assailed even in second appeal which had not been provided in family cases, while constitutional jurisdiction being much more limited in its scope, could not be exercised in absence of any illegality in the process of reaching findings of fact or any other error of jurisdiction committed by Courts below.
The Family Courts Act,
Interim order pending suit. The direction to the statute is to establish Courts and then there are laid down the qualifications of the officers who can man this Court.
Section 5 in it by Senate Bill No.