Find a Lawyer

MST. NAUREEN TAHIRA versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Article 5 of the Constitution and Schedule to the Constitution (1973), Article 199 petitioner / wife filed a case for recovery of the amount mentioned in Article 17 of the Family Court of the marriage but the order was reversed in the appeal. The receipt of the disputed amount on the document in the form of an affidavit was relinquished to the applicant for the receipt of Rs 100,000 mentioned in the marriage letter No. 17 in the Seed document which he pleased with his spouse / defendant. I was forgiven during my heartfelt apology. Was it comparable to the signature of an educated woman with her competitor's court appeals and found that the applicant voluntarily applied for immunity? The defendant submitted that this document was applied without any coercion by the applicant cion Appellate Court's finding that the amount of the suit cannot be considered part of the Dwyer amount and Was not recovered by the Family Court established under the Muslim Family Courts Act, 1964, the schedule of which was introduced in Part I. The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 gave the Family Court jurisdiction to recover the personal property of the wife and her belongings. The applicant withdrew himself from the right to recover the amount of the suit, but the case was not retained. \ r \ n \ r \ n advocate for immigration from Kohlu lawyer