Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ABDUR REHMAN versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUJRANWALA


Section 2 Mohammedn Law Hating the spouse's marital spouse does not have to give reasons for a reasonable examination after which the court may leave the decision to satisfy his conscience that the parties are in a marital union. Can't stay God's attitude to the parties before the Family Court suggests that there was no possibility of living with the spouse; a decree is granted on the basis of khallah, in which case no inquiry can be made, return of benefits by the wife. , The court is obliged to ascertain the evidence. Regarding the marriage and at its discretion, what benefits have been acknowledged by the husband for ordering the wife to return the same [Khulla]

1981 C L C 68

[Lahore]

Before M. S. H. Qureshi, J

ABDUR REHMAN‑Petitioner

versus

THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Writ Petition No. 8400 of 1979, decided on 20th July 1980.

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)‑

---S. 2‑Muhammadan Law‑Dissolution of marriage‑Khula'‑Suit for khula on ground of aversion of husband‑Wife not required to give reasons amenable to an objective test whereupon Court can base decision Court left to satisfy its conscience that parties cannot live in marital union within limits of God‑Attitude of parties before Family Court indicating that there was no possibility of spouses living together‑Grant of decree on ground of khula'‑Held, cannot be questioned in such circumstances‑Return of benefits by wife‑Held, Court's duty to ascertain from evidence as to what benefits had been confessed by husband in consideration of marriage and in its discretion, to order wife to return same.‑[Khula'].

Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin P L D 1967 S C 97; Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, Art. 319 and Mst. Balqis Fatima v. Najm‑ul‑Ikram Qureshi P L D 1959 Lah. 566 ref.

Muhammad Hussain A wan for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

Ataullah Mirza for Respondent 2.

Date of hearing : 1st July 1980.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Zahir Pir lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.