Find a Lawyer

MST. SARWAR BEGUM versus FAIZ AHMAD

Article 5 and the Schedule Litigation Act (IX of 1908), Schedule, Article 104, the suit for the recovery of the post-dower (the husband) (defendant) opposed the claim that he had sued the plaintiff for three years before setting the case. The sentence is simple. The family court had banned the trial in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court rejected the family court's decision and found that the case was barred in accordance with Article 104 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for recovery before filing a legal restitution and defendant requested in his written statement that he had divorced the plaintiff in 8 1 1990, at the time of the alleged declaration, the defendant. Divorce was not acknowledged by Ali, and a written statement in the case was filed by the defendant. 16 7 1990 and decision in this case was pronounced on 11 11 1992 8 8 1990 No divorce notice was supported by the divorce petition or the date of hearing of the decision by the arbitration council in the case of divorce settlement. It will be effective on the basis of the statement made by the plaintiff in 24 11 1992 that the divorce could have been heard in the past, on the date of delivery of a copy of the written statement to the plaintiff's wife, affected by the divorce. Will not be treated; due to divorce, the period was three years when the marriage was dissolved. It will be considered dissolved when the case came to notice of the decision of the plaintiff's wife, a decision was pronounced on 24 11 1992, in which the court found that the plaintiff had divorced. Accepting the decision, providing for a limitation under Rule 104 of the Act immigration advocate from Mansehra lawyer