Divorce Procedure in Pakistan, Divorce Process in Pakistan, Divorce in Pakistan, Divorce Law in Pakistan, Divorce Procedure For Overseas Pakistani.
Dower & Divorce in Pakistan:
Trial Court decreed the suit. Appellate Court dismissed an appeal of the defendant. The solitary statement of the defendant was not sufficient to prove that the dowry articles were purchased with the money provided by him in case of divorce procedure in Pakistan. A woman was the absolute owner of all the property given to her as dowry and bridal gifts under S. 3 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976. A bride was the owner of dowry articles. She was entitled to retain and claim the return of such articles if she was deprived of the same by her husband or anyone else irrespective of the value or source of such reports. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was completely discretionary in the case of divorce procedure in Pakistan. While exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, the Court had to ensure that the subordinate Court or Tribunal had not acted without jurisdiction or violated the law.
High Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction, could not reappraise evidence as Court of appeal. Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a matter was competent to determine the same rightly or wrongly. The mere fact that a decision was incorrect would not render the same to have been made without lawful authority. Impugned judgments and decrees did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference High Court. The constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Appeal against order of Trial Court accepting defendant’s application for producing documents in case of divorce procedure in Pakistan was filed.
No appeal or revision was competing against an interlocutory order of Family Court under S. 14(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The interim order of Family Court could not be challenged in High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The constitutional petition was, therefore, dismissed in limine. Defendant’s application for summoning of the plaintiff in person was filed. Defendant’s plea was that plaintiff had not filed suit with her free consent, that she was not a pardanashin lady, and that her attendance in Court was essential for reconciliation and to resolve the question of the authenticity of her signatures on plaint. Dismissal of such application by Family Court was checked. Plaintiff living abroad had been pursuing suit through her attorney/father. Plaintiff had appeared before Family Court and made the statement after putting her signatures on its order sheet that she had to go to America and could not live with the defendant. Plaintiff was identified before Family Court by her counsel.
Order of Additional Session Judge:
Order of Additional Sessions Judge disposing of habeas corpus petition on plaintiff’s statement was still holding the field for not having been challenged any further by their attorney duly represented plaintiff her attorney. Thus, there was no need for her appearance before the court. The plaintiff, having appHavingourt once or twice, would not be disentitled the plaintiff to avail legal right provided under S. 18 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 for all times to come. The personal appearance of the plaintiff in conciliation proceedings was not mandatory. The question as to whether the plaintiff was a pardanashin lady or not, being factual one could not be decided in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The defendant could raise such a question before Family Court during the trial or at the time of the final decision of the case. The impugned interim order was neither illegal nor mala fide or without jurisdiction; thus, it could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction. High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition in the circumstances. Parties’ transgressing parameters laid down in Islam should relieve each other with kindness. Spouses were found violating the limits of Islam. Islam Suggests separation with kindness.