Find a Lawyer

EYESHA SIDDIQUA versus SHAFQAT HUSSAIN ARSHAD

Sections 7 and 8 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Sections 5 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Articles 103 and 104 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Constitution Dover amount, the chairman banning divorce Reinstatement of K's Notice The Arbitration Council exercised its right to divorce the wife, but no notice was sent to the Chairman Arbitration Council after which the husband divorced his wife. The chairman sent a notice to the arbitration council and the divorce proved effective, and the wife filed a lawsuit to recover the doer's money, which the family court barred from restraining on the grounds that the divorce had an effect when she exercised her right. An appeal was also filed by his wife. The constitutional plea rejected by the wife by the appellate court ruled that the divorce could not be effective, because after exercising such a right, no notice was given to the chairman. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and concluded that the ninth day had never begun to run so that divorce could be made effective at any time after the exercise of such a right by the wife. Divorce has never been affected by the exercise of the right to divorce. And the divorce announced by the husband came into effect on the ninth day, when the notice to the chairman's arbitration council suit was within three years by the wife as defined in Arts 103 and 104 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Was informed of the verdict and orders were issued to dismiss the wife's claim for recovery of the Dover amount on the sole land, which her claim was timely prohibited. Without property advocate from Bat Khela lawyer