Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Constitutional Petition No.S-117 of 1981, decided' on 23rd August, 1987.
---S.5 (Sched.)-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitu tional jurisdiction, exercise of--Question whether disputed Nikahnama was genuine or bogus being question -of fact on which Family Appellate Court could have recorded finding of fact, High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not sit as Appellate Court in that. hatter.
Ameer Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents (absent).
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1987.
This Constitutional Petition is directed against the judgment dated 10-3-1981 passed by the learned District Judge, Hyderabad in Family Appeal No.81 of 1980.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the present petitioner filed Family Suit No.233 of 1978 for dissolution of marriage and for recovery of dower amount of Rs.10,000.. The above suit was resisted by respondent No.1. The learned Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed seven issues. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, th1 learned Family Court decreed the suit for the dissolution of marriage as well as for dower amount. The respondent No.1 had filed Family Appeal No.81/80 which was not proceeded with in respect of the dissolution of marriage as it was considered that no appeal against a decree for dissolution was competent. The learned Family Appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 10-3-1981 has held that since the Evidence Act is not applicable in view of section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the learned Family Appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit for dower amount on the basis of alleged Nikahnama which was denied by the other side. It has been pointed out that according to the petitioner the marriage had taken place in 1966 whereas the alleged Nikahnama was dated 28-4-1965 (Ex.29). The petitioner has filed the present petition against the above finding recorded by the learned Family Appellate Court.
3. I have heard Mr. Ameer Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. His main submission is that the learned Family Appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the Nikahnama. According to him he had filed certified copy of the Nikahnama and, therefore, its contents should have been accepted. In my view, the question whether Nikahnama was a genuine or bogus was a question of fact on which the learned Family Appellate Court could have been recorded finding of fact. I cannot sit as an Appellate Court in this Constitutional petition. The petition is therefore, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
H . B . T . / N-56/ K Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer