Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Sections 7 and 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 199 and 185 (3) Suit for maintenance of restoration for the past three years Oblige husband to retain his wife () Constitutional jurisdiction of defendant / defendant For the last three years, the suit against the defendant / applicant for recovery of the restoration allowance, the family court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to the restoration of the past for three months and also accepted the appeal for the lower appellate court of the term. Despite this, it was found that the plaintiff has been entitled to rehabilitation for the last three years and for the duration of the period the High Court has also passed the lower Plaintiffs / pleas of the Appellate Court. R Detection of the authentication, the claimant to supply the maintenance allowance is inconsistent with Islam. And the plaintiff did not disclose any proceedings in her case to keep his wife and even if she was forced to stay away from her husband due to any wrongdoing, The court did not make any mistake in approving the plaintiff's past care for the past three years. Under sections 7 and 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to mention the reason for his action in the contents of the case and the contents of the plaintiff clearly indicated the reason for the action. Had to read a document. The first appellate court had all the powers of a trial court and the first appellate court justified the review / reappraisal of the record The first appellate court overruled the fact finding and the High Court. Was justified law firms from Wah Cantt lawyer