Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 23‑D of 1970, decided on 18th June 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 9th March 1970, in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 1970).
--------S. 7(1), (3) Divorce No notice of divorce given to Chairman, Local Union Council‑Divorce not effective.
A. T. Saadi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by T. Hossain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 18th June 1970.
‑The petitioner married the respondent and got a child by that marriage. The respondent made an application under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her maintenance and the maintenance of the child. Mr. S. M. Hossain, Magistrate of the First Class, Narayanganj allowed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 40 to the respondent and a further monthly maintenance of Rs. 20 for the child. This order granting maintenance was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 1970. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan dismissed the criminal revision. The petition for special leave is directed against the order of the High Court.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's marriage with the respondent was dissolved by divorce and that this dissolution was effected with the consent of the respondent. This plea was also raised before the learned Judge of the High Court, but he found that no notice of the alleged divorce having been given to the Chairman of the Local Union Council under section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, the divorce had not become effective. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that no notice of the alleged divorce was given to the Chairman as required by section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. That being so the alleged divorce, in view of the express provision of subsection (3) of section 7 of the said Ordinance, is yet to become effective. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judge is correct. Accordingly no interference with the order of the High Court is called for. The petition is dismissed:
The delay in filing the petition is condoned on the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer