Find a Lawyer

FARKHANDA MUMTAZ versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Section 5, Schedule and Section 14 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 120 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Request for Rehabilitation Limitations Trial Court dismissed the case filed by the wife, but the appellate court approved the same. The recovery was declared as Rs 3000 monthly, from January 2002, until the approval of the decree and not satisfied with the decision of the next applicant and the decision of the appellate court, he filed a constitutional petition against the decision and ordered The husband was abroad in connection with his business and also had a second marriage contract. And the other wife was living with the applicant through her own statement, and her witnesses had largely proved that her husband / defendant had failed to pay for her care while the husband was abroad. , It was complicated that the applicant (wife) was expelled by her. The defendant (husband) or he left the home voluntarily the petitioner's wife did not violate any y the marital nor did she refuse to pay her marital obligations Respondent / Husband Legal As the applicant was obliged to retain the spouse, even though he was abroad, the respondent himself admitted that he had the capability to pay the applicant Rs 5,000 per month. There is a reason why the duration of the rehabilitation allowance was reduced. The suit for past restoration was run under Article 210 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which brought the case for care filed by the applicant (wife). Due to the period of 6 years the company was sued and Rs 5000 for the earlier 6 years period. jobs for advocates from Silanwala lawyer