MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Mst. DOULAN and 2 others
This writ petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, and the Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority, Jhang, regarding the determination of maintenance allowance for the respondent. The petitioner contended that he had divorced the respondent on 27-9-1991, producing a divorce deed to support this claim, and argued that the lower authorities failed to consider this fact when awarding maintenance. The respondent denied the 1991 divorce, acknowledging only a subsequent divorce dated 17-9-1996. Upon review, the Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the 1991 divorce. Specifically, the Court observed that the petitioner provided no evidence that the alleged 1991 divorce deed was ever communicated to the wife, nor was a copy sent to the Chairman, Arbitration Council, as required for the divorce to be legally effective. Consequently, the Court ruled that in the absence of proof of communication or official notification of the earlier divorce, there was no legal basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The writ petition was dismissed.
- Is a written divorce deed effective if it has not been communicated to the wife?
- Must a divorce deed be sent to the Chairman of the Arbitration Council to be legally effective?
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of lower authorities regarding maintenance if the alleged divorce is unproven?
' Let it be considered as admitted case.
2. Through this writ petition, the judgment passed by the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council, dated 17-7-1998 and that of the learned Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority, Jhang is challenged.
3. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was earlier divorced on 27-9-1991. This divorce-deed is reduced into writing, bears the signature of witnesses Sheroo son of Raja Akram and Allah Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad and the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council has not looked into this fact and unlawfully determined the maintenance allowance for respondent No, 1 .
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that respondent has admitted the divorce, dated 17- 9-1996. The learned Chairman, Arbitration Council has rightly determined the maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has earlier divorced the petitioner on 27-9- 1991 is concerned, I have perused the divorce-deed, it is bearing the signature of the marginal witnesses Sheroo son of Raja Akram and Allah Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad. Any divorce-deed which is reduced into writing must be communicated to the wife. Petitioner has not placed on record any proof that this divorce is duly communicated to the respondent nor he has produced any marginal witness to prove that he divorced her on 27-9-1991. He has not sent copy of the same to the learned Chairman, Arbitration Council so that the divorce be effected. The respondent categorically denied this earlier divorce. However, she submits that she was divorced on 17-9-1996 as nothing exist on record that the petitioner had earlier divorced the respondent, no substance exists to interfere in the concurrent finding of learned Courts below. This writ petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs TAHIRA YASMIN and 2 otherss 2007 MLD 1692
- ZULIFQAR ALI vs JUDGE, FAMILY COURT and 7 otherss 2007 MLD 1710
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT 2008 PLJ Lahore 104