Article 5 and the Scheduled Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Section 9 constitution further reinstates the claim that the plaintiff, having voluntarily left the defendant's home, was not entitled to rehabilitation and care The 20% annual increase was very legitimate; the plaintiff / spouse could not prove, through positive evidence, that their alleged income and financial resources were the defendant / husband where the wife voluntarily and without legal excuse left the husband's house. Elected, rehabilitation claim invalid, family court was obliged to determine husband's financial status, which amounted to care Failure to determine whether the wife has left the husband's home due to her own choice or cruel treatment to her husband and failure to maintain it under section 9 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 The wife, who is ready to play marital rights but can be deserted by her husband with no excuse, was denied the right to claim restitution in the absence of allegations of cruelty or immorality with her husband. The wife could not claim rehabilitation for the period during which she was entitled to her husband without legal excuse with her parents. There was an arbitrary increase of 20% in her care annually and she was reduced to 5% annually while the care of the wife is sustained only for the duration of the period.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
