Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.
- Government of Pakistan vs Premier Sugar Mills and others1991 PLD Lahore 381 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenged a trial court judgment that decreed a suit for recovery of money filed by several sugar mills and an association of sugar mills against the Government of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the suit was competently instituted, specifically whether the individuals who filed the suit on behalf of the corporate entities and the association possessed the requisite legal authority. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was incompetently instituted. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of a valid resolution or authorization for the institution of the suit. Regarding the corporate plaintiffs, the Court reaffirmed that a suit on behalf of a company is not competent unless authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors. Regarding the association, the Court held that the Secretary's power to 'represent' the association in court did not equate to the power to 'institute' or 'commence' legal proceedings, which was vested solely in the Committee. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit.
Questions settled- Is a suit instituted by a company competent if the person filing it lacks specific authorization by a resolution of the Board of Directors?
- Does the power to represent an association in legal proceedings inherently include the power to commence and institute such proceedings?
- Can a trial court rely on the oral testimony of a secretary to establish the authority to institute a suit when the Articles of Association contradict such authority?
- Is the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish the competent institution of a suit when the issue is raised by the defendant?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another1991 PLC 23 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
- Gohar Majid Noshahi vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited vs Union Council, Dulu Khurd1991 CLC 354 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging a notification issued by a Union Council imposing an octroi tax on goods imported into its local area. The petitioners argued that the tax levy violated the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980. The core legal question was whether the failure to adhere to the prescribed statutory procedure for public notice and consultation rendered the tax imposition void. The Court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory procedural formalities, specifically regarding the publication of notice and the specification of tax rates. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The judgment establishes that where a statute prescribes specific formalities for the imposition of a tax, these provisions are mandatory; non-compliance renders the entire proceeding void. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that there is no equity in favor of a tax, and any disregard for the prescribed procedure for compulsory exactions must be viewed with disfavour.
Questions settled- Does the failure to follow mandatory procedural formalities for the imposition of a tax render the tax levy void?
- Is the remedy of representation to the Government under Section 153 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, considered an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy that bars a writ petition?
- What are the legal requirements for the publication of a public notice regarding taxation proposals under the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980?
- Ghulam Shahbaz vs Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar1991 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of two individuals, Ata Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad, from the alleged illegal confinement of police officials. A bailiff recovered Ata Muhammad, while Sardar Muhammad was subsequently produced and found upon medical examination to have sustained nineteen injuries, including severe trauma to his private parts. The core legal question concerned the appropriate course of action and remedies against the delinquent police officials for unlawful detention and torture. The Lahore High Court held that the police officials had acted without legal justification and subjected a detainee to brutal physical violence. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under para 22 of the Letters Patent, can direct a preliminary investigation by a senior police officer into alleged criminal and delinquent acts of police officials. The key principles laid down include the strict statutory accountability of police officers under the Police Act 1861 and the constitutional obligation of the police force to act as lawful preservers of public order rather than instruments of torture and oppression.
Questions settled- Can the High Court order a preliminary investigation against delinquent police officials under para 22 of the Letters Patent in a habeas corpus petition?
- What remedies are available when detenus are subjected to physical violence and illegal confinement by police officers?
- What are the statutory duties and powers of superior police officers regarding the supervision and penalization of subordinate officials under the Police Act 1861?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State1991 MLD 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar and 5 others vs Allah Ditta and 14 others1991 CLC 127 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of 279 kanals, 17 marlas of land. The pre-emptors asserted a superior right based on being 'owners of the estate' and owning contiguous land. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptors' land was assessed to land revenue, a prerequisite for establishing the status of 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed this, finding the pre-emptors' land was not assessed to land revenue. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the dismissal of the pre-emption suit. The court held that mere ownership of land in a revenue estate is insufficient; the land must also be assessed to land revenue. Holding slips (khataunis killabandi) do not attract a presumption of truth, and while mutations are relevant evidence, their entries also do not attract a presumption of truth, especially regarding land revenue assessment without corroborating evidence.
Questions settled- What constitutes an 'owner of the estate' for claiming a superior right of pre-emption?
- Do entries in holding slips (khataunis killabandi) attract a presumption of truth?
- Can an entry in a mutation record regarding land revenue assessment, without independent corroboration, establish that land is assessed to land revenue?
- Is mere ownership of land in a revenue estate sufficient to establish a superior right of pre-emption?
- Ghulam Saddique vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 329 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Saddique vs The State1991 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 497 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs Lady Doctor Tauheed Akhtar and others1991 MLD 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil/revenue matter arising from a dispute over the increase of agricultural land rent between co-related parties. The respondent landladies moved an application before the revenue authorities for enhancement of rent from Rs.400 per acre to a higher rate based on prevailing market rates. The tenant contested the proceedings, leading to multiple rounds of litigation before revenue courts, culminating in orders by the Member, Board of Revenue fixing the rent at Rs.2,500 and subsequently Rs.3,000 per acre. The tenant challenged these orders through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the revenue courts lacked jurisdiction and whether the rent could be enhanced. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a plea of jurisdiction not raised before the lower forums cannot be entertained at a belated stage when the party participated in proceedings on merits. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts regarding a parallel civil suit, and was not entitled to equitable relief.
Questions settled- Can a party raise the question of jurisdiction for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction after participating in proceedings on merits?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts on the quantum of rent can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the suppression of a material fact, such as the dismissal of a parallel civil suit, disentitle a petitioner to equitable relief?
- Ghulam Rasul vs Judge, Family Court1991 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, whereby the respondent-wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed on the ground of Khula despite other issues being decided against her. The petitioner contended that dissolution on the ground of Khula was unjustified when other allegations failed and no consideration was returned, noting that ornaments and cash were given at the time of marriage. The Lahore High Court held that Khula is an independent ground for dissolution of marriage and is not contingent upon the outcome of other issues. Furthermore, the Court noted that bridal gifts become the absolute property of the wife under the relevant statute, and contributions toward marriage expenses do not constitute benefits derived by the wife that must be returned for Khula. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that Khula operates independently of other matrimonial fault-based grounds and that bridal gifts cannot be arbitrarily claimed back upon dissolution.
Questions settled- Is Khula an independent ground for dissolution of marriage that is contingent on the outcome of other issues?
- Do bridal gifts bestowed upon a wife at the time of marriage become her absolute property under the law?
- Whether contributions towards marriage expenses can be classified as benefits derived by the wife requiring restitution upon Khula?
- Ghulam Rasul And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Sharif and others1991 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Ghulam Haider, Girdawar And Others1991 PCr.LJ 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Javid and others vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and others1991 PLC 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs Mahboob Ali and another1991 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and 13 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 31991 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Alias Rehmat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Raider vs S.H.O., Police Station Qaimpur, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur and 2 others1991 P Cr. L J 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim Alias Muhammad Qasim And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs Zeeshan Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs Abbas And 5 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir and others vs Mst. Muhammad Bibi and others1991 CLC 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State s1991 P Cr. L J 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs Allah Ditta and 5 others1991 CLC 708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and others vs Member Board of Review and others1991 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1991 MLD 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Judge, Family Court and another1991 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Versus The State. Ghulam Mustafa vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1991 MLD 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza And 2 Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Administrator, T.D.A. and another1991 CLC 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Altaf vs The State(K.L.R. 1991 Shariat Cases 5) · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others vs Mst. Ishrat Ara Begum1991 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad Alias Ghammoon vs The State--.1991 P Cr. L J 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Khawaja And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Khaliq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Qriminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jillani vs Deputy Commissioner/Districtcollector and others1991 CLC 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Arbitration Council granting maintenance to an ex-wife. The core legal question was whether an ex-wife could invoke Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to recover maintenance for a period when the marriage was subsisting, notwithstanding its subsequent dissolution. The petitioner argued that jurisdiction under Section 9 only applies during the subsistence of marriage, as the respondent had ceased to be a 'wife'. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 9 is a beneficial piece of legislation. It ruled that an ex-wife can indeed seek maintenance for the period during which the marriage was intact, and the term 'wife' in Section 9 includes an ex-wife making such a claim. The court emphasized that once a liability for maintenance accrues, it can be recovered under Section 9, even after divorce.
Questions settled- Can an ex-wife file an application for maintenance under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for a period when the marriage was subsisting?
- Does the term 'wife' in Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, include an ex-wife seeking maintenance for the period the wedlock was intact?
- Can arrears of maintenance be recovered under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, even after the dissolution of marriage?
- Is Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, a beneficial piece of legislation to be construed broadly?
- Ghulam Jillani and 3 others vs Niamat Ullah and 2 others1991 MLD 789 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jili.Ani vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Anwar Hussain EtcK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 485 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Anwar Hussain and 2 others1991 MLD 523 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1991 PLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a driver working under the District Manager, P.R.T.C., challenging the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the employer could rely on inconsistent service record entries regarding the employee's date of birth to force retirement, while ignoring a subsequent medical opinion obtained at the employer's own instance. The Lahore High Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal acted arbitrarily in treating an old service form as sacrosanct while ignoring the medical board's certificate and the contradictions in the departmental record. The Court ruled that where an employer's record regarding an employee's age is inconsistent and untrustworthy, and the employer itself referred the employee for a medical examination, the benefit of the doubt in matters of age must be resolved in favor of the employee, giving preference to the medical opinion over contradictory administrative records.
Questions settled- Whether an employer can rely on an inconsistent departmental service record to determine retirement age while ignoring a medical opinion obtained at its own instance?
- Should the benefit of doubt regarding an employee's age and date of birth be resolved in favor of the employee or the employer?
- Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is justified in treating an unverified old service form as conclusive proof of age over a subsequent medical certificate?
- Ghulam Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Lahore Development Authority through its Director1991 MLD 670 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and Another vs Haji Safarash KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 431 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs The State1991 MLD 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs Allah Bakhsh and others1991 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs Abdul Hafeez KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs Abdul Hafeez Khan1991 MLD 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Din vs Muhammad Asghar1991 CLC 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmed vs Mst. Azizan1991 MLD 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State1991 MLD 884 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 370 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Mohammad Iqbal EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 234 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas Shah and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ghee Corporation of Pakistan vs Registrar, Trade Unions and another1991 PLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan challenging the registration of respondent No. 2 as a trade union by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioner argued that the union's members belonged to the 'Management Cadre' (specifically Assistant Managers of Grades I and II) and were not 'workmen' under the law, and that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The respondent contended that the members had no hire-and-fire powers and qualified as workmen. The Lahore High Court analyzed the service rules and pay scales, concluding that Assistant Managers were part of the management cadre and excluded from the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court held that although the statute does not explicitly mandate notice to the employer, compliance with Section 7(2) regarding the verification of workmen status and membership thresholds cannot be effectively achieved without associating and hearing the employer. Consequently, the registration was declared illegal for violating the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether employees classified under the management cadre with distinct service rules can be considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Is the Registrar of Trade Unions required to associate and hear the employer before registering a new trade union under Section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the failure to provide notice and a hearing to an employer prior to registering a trade union violate the principles of natural justice?
- Ghulam Muhammad And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Gharib Alam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ghani Farooq vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1991 CLC 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ghalib Hussain Alias Ghali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 849 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Fiaz vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Feroze vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Younis and 2 others1991 MLD 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman alias Pappu vs Superintendent, Jail Kot Lakhpat, Lahore1991 MLD 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1991 CLC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim Alias Kareeman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs The Collector and others1991 MLD 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain Shah vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1881 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal Bib! and others vs Abdul Haq and others1991 CLC 291 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an ex parte decree passed by the trial court after the case was transferred. The core legal question was whether a defendant, against whom ex parte proceedings had already been ordered in the transferor court, is entitled to notice from the transferee court before the case proceeds further. The court held that a defendant does not cease to be a party to the suit merely because of an order for ex parte proceedings; they remain a party to the litigation and are entitled to notice of the transfer and the date of hearing in the transferee court. The court emphasized that the defendant has a right to appear and join proceedings at any stage. Consequently, the court set aside the ex parte decree, ruling that the failure to issue notice rendered the decree illegal, and remanded the case to the trial court to proceed from the stage of ex parte evidence after providing proper notice to the parties.
Questions settled- Does a defendant against whom ex parte proceedings have been ordered cease to be a party to the suit?
- Is a transferee court required to issue notice to a defendant who was proceeded against ex parte in the transferor court?
- Can a court pass an ex parte decree against a defendant without providing notice of the transfer of the case?
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher and others vs Khanan and others1991 MLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Fateh Mohummad vs The State Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) Department, Lahore and 2 others1991 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Fateh Haider Shah vs The State1991 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Faryad Hussain And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Ejaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Farooq Waste Co. vs WAPDA and others1991 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
- Farkhanda Akhtar vs Mian Naeem-Ur-RehmanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-07Read full judgment →
- Farida Khanum vs Maqbul Ilahi and 2 others1991 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three writ petitions challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which affirmed a Family Court's decision regarding the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner sought dissolution on grounds including cruelty, misappropriation of dowry, and Khula. While the Family Court decreed the dissolution, it simultaneously ordered the petitioner to forego her dower and maintenance claims, treating the dissolution as based on Khula. The core legal question was whether a wife can be compelled to relinquish dower and maintenance when the marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry in addition to Khula, and whether such compensation can be ordered absent a specific demand by the husband. The Court held that when dissolution is granted on grounds like cruelty, which are independent of Khula under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the wife cannot be penalized by forfeiting her financial rights. Furthermore, the Court established that a wife cannot be directed to pay compensation for Khula unless the husband has specifically demanded it in his pleadings or evidence.
Questions settled- Can a wife be compelled to forego dower and maintenance when a marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry alongside Khula?
- Is a court empowered to order the relinquishment of dower and maintenance as compensation for Khula if the husband has not specifically demanded such compensation in his pleadings or evidence?
- Does the dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, entitle a wife to her dower and maintenance?
- Farida Khanum and another vs Mian Muhammad Luqman and others1991 CLC 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →