Mst. AMNA ZAKARIYA vs M. ZAKARIYA KHAN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the validity of a divorce. The petitioner contended that the divorce (Talaq) pronounced by the respondent never became effective due to the alleged non-compliance with the notice requirements stipulated under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court examined the record and determined that the core issue regarding the service of notice was a question of fact that had already been concluded by the High Court, which found that the requisite notice was indeed served upon the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. Although the petition was time-barred, the Court exercised discretion to examine the merits due to the nature of the case, but ultimately found that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claims on the factual issues presented.
- Does the failure to serve a notice of Talaq under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render the divorce ineffective?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the service of notice in a divorce case?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if it is barred by time but involves a question of fact already concluded by the High Court?
- Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petitioner in this family matter, has called in question the judgment dated- 2-2-1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby her Constitutional petition arising out of a case of divorce was dismissed.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on some judgments of the Superior Courts contended that the relevant provisions of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 regarding service of notice of Talaq on the petitioner not having been complied with, the Talaq stated to have been pronounced by the respondent No. 1 never became effective.
3. ' Leaving aside the other questions dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the High Court, the question raised by the learned counsel stands concluded by a finding of fact; namely, that the requisite notice was in fact served on the petitioner. Reliance of the learned counsel on some of the observations of Chairman of Local/Arbitration Council, is of no help to the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we have come to the conclusion that the findings rendered by the learned Judge in the High Coat do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal and the same accordingly is refused.
5. It needs to be mentioned that although the petition for leave to appeal has been reported by the office as badly barred by time, we after hearing the learned counsel in the circumstances of this case, (a woman having confidently asserted that she had not been divorced) thought it fit to examine the merits but she having failed on questions of fact, could not be granted any relief.