Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IDREES versus RUKHSANA SIDDIQUE

Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application Under section 10 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the assumption made by the plaintiff after the plaintiff dissolved her marriage was misreading and not reading the evidence. The suit was partly for recovery. The trial court's appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the plaintiff against the trial decision were ruled in their favor that the plaintiff filed a constitutional petition filed by the plaintiff that the Western Under Section 10 of the Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, a compulsory procedure for reconciliation efforts was not followed by the trial court, and therefore this order was a duplicate of the law and, moreover, The courts below had no ill-read and unreadable evidence on the record; There was about divorce but there could be some relation between the alliance where the demand was about Dover's recovery, however, where the marriage between the parties was finally terminated and there was a Dover recovery case. There is no concept of reconciliation investigation and application of section 10 of the West Pakistan Family Courts. The Act, 1964, therefore, had no relevance in the present case because the marriage had already been dissolved between the plaintiff and the plaintiff courts that the courts, as a matter of fact, had the right to resolve the dispute of facts between the parties and such domain; Possessed authority and prejudice. Testimony and consideration of the testimonies by the parties has been extended, by any of the courts below. divorce advocates from Hala lawyer