MUHAMMAD PARVEZ versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF
The husband challenged the decision passed by Articles 5 (1973), Arts 185 (3) and 199 of the Constitution of Khulna T trial court on the ground that there was no specific finding that the parties were within the limits of Allah. Will not be able to maintain. An essential component of such a decree was the fact finding by the trial court on the issue, which was affirmed by the trial court. This shows that it fully agrees with the rule that the Khulula Declaration can be approved when it is found that the parties will not be able to do so. In order to uphold the limits of Allah, from this angle, the arguments of the petitioner's counsel regarding Khulla were also reviewed and came to the same conclusion, which was heard by the trial court, in the jurisdiction of the Constitution. No interference was sought in finding the facts challenged by the source. The High Court and he were unconvinced as to whether he was legally seen or denied a proprietary leave to appeal
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
criminal advocate from Sialkot lawyer
