THE
WEST PAKISTAN RULES UNDER MUSLIM FAMILY LAWS
ORDINANCE, 1961

10th July 1961

In exercise of powers conferred by section 11 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961), the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to make the following rules, namely:

PRELIMINARY

1. These rules may be called the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.

2. In these rules unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

(a) ‘Form’ means a form appended to these rules;

(b) ‘Ordinance’ means the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961 ;

(d) ‘Section’ means a section of the Ordinance.

ARBITRATION COUNCIL

3. The Union Council which shall have jurisdiction in the matter for purpose of clause (d) of section 2, shall be as follows namely: –

(a) in the case of an application to contract another marriage under ‘subsection (2) of section 6, it shall be the Union Council of the Union or Town in which the existing wife of the applicant, or where the husband has more wives than one, the wife with whom the applicant was married last, is residing at the time of his making the application ;
Provided that if at the time of making the application, such wife is not residing in any part of West Pakistan, the union council that shall have jurisdiction shall be:—

i) in case such wife was at any time residing with the applicant in any part of West Pakistan, the union Council of the Union or Town where such wife so last resided with the applicant ; and

ii) in any other case, the Union Council of the union or Town where the applicant is permanently residing in West Pakistan;

(b) in the case of a notice of talaq under sub-section (1) of section 7, it shall be the Union Council of the Union or Town in which the wife in relation to whom talaq has been pronounced was residing at the time of the pronouncement to talaq ;

Provided that if at the time of pronouncement of talaq such wife was not residing in any part of West Pakistan, the union Council that shall have jurisdiction shall be:–

i) in case such wife was at any time residing with the person pronouncing the talaq in any part of West Pakistan, Union Council or the Union or Town where such wife so last resided with such person; and
ii) in any other case, the Union Council of the union or Town where the person pouncing the talaq is permanently residing in West Pakistan; and

( c ) in the case of an application for maintenance under section 9, it shall be the Union Council of the Union or Town in which the wife is residing at the time of her making the application, and where application under,, that section is made by more than one wife, it shall be the Union Council of the Union or Town in which the wife who makes the application first, is residing at the time of her making the application.

3-A. Where the whereabouts of the wife who is to be supplied a copy of the notice of talaq under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Ordinance, are not known to the husband, or cannot, with due diligence, be ascertained by him, he may, if so permitted by the Chairman, give notice of the talaq to the wife through her father, mother, adult brother or adult sister, or if their whereabouts are not known to the husband or cannot, with due diligence, be ascertained by him, he may, with the permission of the Chairman serve the notice of talaq on her by publication in a newspaper, approved by the Chairman, having circulation in the locality where he last resided with
the wife.

4. Where a non-Muslim has been elected as Chairman of a Union Council, the Council shall as soon as may be elect one of its Muslim members as Chairman for the purposes of the Ordinance, in the manner prescribed for the election of a Chairman of a Union Council.

5.(1) All proceedings before an Arbitration Council shall be held in camera unless the Chairman otherwise directs with the consent of all the parties.

(2) The Chairman shall conduct the proceedings of an Arbitration Council as expeditiously as possible.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-ride (4), such proceedings shall not be vitiated by reason of a vacancy in the Arbitration .Council, whether on account of failure of any person to nominate a representative or otherwise.

(4) Where a vacancy arises otherwise than through failure to make a nomination, the Chairman shall require a fresh nomination.

(5) No party to proceedings before an Arbitration Council shall be a member of the Arbitration Council.

(6) All decisions of the Arbitration Council shall be taken by majority, and where no decision can be so taken, the decision of the Chairman shall be the decision of the Arbitration Council.

(7) A copy of the decision of the Arbitration Council duly attested by the Chairman, shall be furnished free of cost to each of the parties to the proceedings.

6.(1) Within seven days of receiving an application under sub-section (4) of section 6 or under sub-section (1) of section 9, or a notice under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Chairman shall, by order in writing, call upon each of the parties to nominate his or her representative, and each such party shall, within seven days of receiving the order, nominate in writing a representative and deliver the nomination to the Chairman or send it to him by registered post.

(2) Where a representative nominated by a party is, by reasons of illness or otherwise, unable to attend the meetings of the Arbitration Council, or willfully absents himself from such meeting, or has lost the confidence of the party, the party, may, with the previous permission in writing of the Chairman, revoke the nomination and make, within such time as the Chairman may allow, a fresh nomination.

Provided that where a party on whom the order is to be served is residing out side Pakistan, the order may be served on such party through the Consular Officer of Pakistan in or for the country where such party is residing.

(3) Where a fresh nomination is made under sub-rule (2), it shall not be necessary to commence the proceedings before the Arbitration Council de novo, unless the chairman, for reasons to be recorded in writing, directs otherwise.

6-A. (1) Where it is made to appear to the Collector whether on the application of a party to the proceedings or on his own information, that the Chairman is interested in favour of a party to any proceedings before the Arbitration Council or is prejudiced against any such party, or that the Chairman is misconducting himself in any such proceedings the Collector may, after giving notice to all the parties to the proceedings, appoint any other member of the Union Council as the Chairman for purpose of this Ordinance, and pending the passing of such orders may stay the proceedings before the Arbitration Council.

(2) A Collector passing an order under this rule shall record in writing his reasons for the same.

7. (1) Any person competent to solemnize a marriage under
Muslim Law may apply to the Union Council for the grant of a licence to act as Nikah Registrar under section 5.

(2) If the Union Council, after making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person for the grant of a licence, it may, subject to the conditions specified therein, grant a licence to him in Form I.

(3) A licence granted under this rule shall be permanent and shall be revocable only for the contravention of any of the conditions of the licence granted under this rule.

(4) If any person to whom a licence has been granted under this rule contravenes any of the conditions of such licence, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

8. (1) The Union Council shall, on payment of such cost as
may be determined by the Provincial Government, supply to every Nikah Registrar a bound register of Nikahnama in Form II, and a seal bearing the inscription ‘the seal of the Nikah Registrar of Ward (x) (y).

(2) Each register shall contain fifty leaves consecutively numbered, each leaf having a Nikahnama, in the quadruplicate, and the number of leaves shall be certified by the Chairman.

(3) Notwithstanding the payment of cost under sub-rule (1), the register and the seal shall remain the property of the Union Council.

9. (1) For the registration of a marriage registered under section 5, the Nikah Registrar shall be paid by the bridegroom or his representative a registration fee of two rupees, or when the dower exceeds two thousand rupees, a fee calculated at the rate of one rupee for every thousand or part of thousand rupees of such dower, subject to a maximum fee of twenty rupees.

(2) Of the fees received under sub-rule (1) the Nikah Registrar shall retain for himself eighty per cent and shall pay the remaining twenty per cent to the Union Council.

(3) Where dower consists of property other than money or partly of such property and partly of money, the valuation of the property shall, for purposes of fees under sub-rule (1), be the valuation as settled between, the parties to the marriage.

10. (1) The Nikah Registrar shall, in the case of a marriage solemnized by him, fill in Form 12, in quadruplicate, in the register, the persons, whose signatures are required in the form, shall then sign, and the Nikah Registrar shall then affix his signature and seal thereto, and keep the original intact in the register.

(2) The duplicate and triplicate of the Nikahnama filed in as aforesaid, shall be supplied to the bride and the bridegroom respectively, on payment of fifty paisa each, and the quadruplicate shall be forwarded to the Union Council.

(3) If any person required by this rule to sign the register, refuses so to sign, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

11.(1) Where a marriage is solemnized in Pakistan by a person other than the Nikah Registrar, such person shall fill Form II, to be had lose on payment of such price as may be determined by the Provincial Government, the persons whose signatures required in the Form, shall then sing, and the person solemnizing the marriage then affix his signature to the Form and ensure delivery, as expeditiously as possible, of the same together with the registration fee to the Nikah Registrar of the Ward where the marriage is solemnized.

(2) If any person required by this rule to sing the Form refuses so to sign, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

12.(1) In the case of marriage solemnized outside Pakistan, by a person who is a citizen of Pakistan, such person shall ensure delivery of Form II, filled in accordance with the provisions of rule 11 together with the registration fee, to the Consular Officer of Pakistan in or for the country in which the marriage is solemnized, for onward transmission to the Nikah’ Registrar of the Ward of which the bride is a permanent resident, and in case the bride is not a citizen of Pakistan, to the Nikah Registrar of the Ward of which the bridegroom is such resident.

(2) In the case of a marriage solemnized outside Pakistan by a person who is not a citizen of Pakistan, the bridegroom, and where only the bride is such citizen, the bride shall, for purposes of filling in, as far as may be, Form II, be deemed to be the person who has solemnized the marriage under sub-rule (1).

13. On receipt of Form II under rule 11 or 12, the Nikah Registrar shall proceed in the manner provided in rule 10 as if the marriage had been solemnized by him:

Provided that except where the marriage has been solemnized within his jurisdiction, it shall not be necessary for the Nikah Registrar to obtain the signatures of the necessary persons.

POLYGAMY

14. In considering whether another proposed marriage is just and necessary during the continuance of an existing marriage the Arbitration Council any, without prejudice to its general powers to consider what is just and necessary, have regard to such circumstances, as the following amongst others : Sterility, physical infirmity, physical unfitness for the conjugal relation, willful avoidance of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, or insanity on the part of an existing wife.

15. An application under sub-section (1) of section 6 of permission to contract another marriage during the subsistence of an existing marriage shall be in writing, shall state whether the consent of the existing wife or wives has been obtained thereto, shall contain a brief statement of the grounds on which the new marriage is alleged to be just and necessary, shall bear the signature of the applicant, and shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred rupees.

REVISION

16.(1) Application for the revision of a decision of an Arbitration Council, under sub-section (4) of section 6, or of a certificate under sub-section (2) of section 9, shall be preferred within thirty days of the decision or of the issue of the certificate, as the case may be, and shall be accompanied by a fee of two rupees.

(2) The application shall be in writing, set out the grounds on which the applicant seeks to have the decision or the certificate revised, and shall bear the signature of the applicant.

Records and their inspection etc.

17. As soon as may be after the Arbitration Council has given its decision under rule 6, the record of the proceedings before it in which such decision has been given, shall be forwarded by the Chairman to the office of the Union Council, where it shall be preserved for a period of five years from the date of the decision.

18.(1) The quadruplicate of the Nikahnama forwarded by Nikah Registrar under sub-rule (2) of rule 10 shall be preserved in the office of the Union Council until such time as the register containing the original is, on being completed deposited by the Nikah Registrar in such office.

(2) The completed register so received shall be preserved permanently.

(3) In the office of Union Council there shall be prepared and maintained and index of the contents of every register, and every entry in such index shall be made, so far as practicable, immediately after the Nikah Registrar has made an entry in the register.

(4) The aforesaid index shall contain the name, place of residence and father’s name of each party to every marriage registered within the Union or Town, as the case may be, and the dates of the marriage and registration.

19.(1) Subject to the previous payment of the fees prescribed in sub-rules (2) and (3), the index and the register shall, at all reasonable times, be open to inspection at the office of the Union Council by any person applying to inspect the same and copies of entries in the index and the register, duly signed and sealed by the Chairman, shall be given to all persons applying for such copies.

(2) The fee for inspection of an index or register shall be fifty paisa.

(3) The fee for a certified copy of all or any of the entries relating to a marriage shall be: –
(a) For those in index … Fifty paisa.
(b) For those in a register … Two rupees.

(4) Fees payable under this rule shall be credited to the Council.

PAYMENT OF FEES

20. Except fees payable to the Nikah Registrar, which shall be paid in cash, all fees payable under these rules shall be paid in non- judicial stamps.

COMPLAINTS

21. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Ordinance or these rules, save on a complaint in writing by the Union Council, stating the facts constituting the offence.

Legal Amendments

Punjab substitution of rule 21 : (Notification No.S.O. X-1-1975-Vol. ll-Punjab Gazette, Extra, 26th November, 1976).

21. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence, under the Ordinance or these rules save on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved party, stating the facts constituting the offence.’

FORM 1
(See Rule 7)

Licence granted in pursuance of section 5(2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)

In pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961) the Union Council, Union Committee, Town Committee of …………………. in the
district of ………………… hereby grants this …………. .day of ………………
19……………. to Mr. …………………………. son of……………………. resident of …………..this licence, subject to the conditions hereunder specified, to be from the said date the Nikah Registrar for the following Ward/Wards :

(1)Ward—–
(2)Ward—–
(3)Ward—–
(4)Ward—–

Signature of the Chairman.

CONDITIONS

1. This licence is not transferable.
2. This licence is revocable for breach of any of the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961), or the rules made thereunder or of any condition of this licence.
3. The registers and seal supplied to the Nikah Registrar shall be returnable to the Union Council, Union Committee. Town Committee without refund of cost, when this licence expires or is revoked. .
4. The Nikah Registrar shall not put the seal supplied to him to any improper use.
5. Such other conditions, if any, as may be specified by the Provincial Government.

FORM II
(See Rules 8, 10, 11 and 12 supra)
Form of Nikahnama as prescribed by Rule 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961
(1) Name of Ward..;………….. Town/Union……………..Tehsil/Thana…………………. and
District ……………………. in which the marriage took place.

(2) Name of the bridegroom and his father, with their respective
residence……………………. …………….,..’………………………..

(3)Age of bridegroom……………………..

(4) The names of the bride and her father, with their respective residences……………………………………………………………..

(5) Whether the bride is a maiden, a widow or a divorce…………………………………………………..

(6) Age of the bride………………………………..

(7) Name of Vakil, if any appointed by the bride, father’s name and his residence ……………………………………………………….

(8) The name of the witnesses to the appointment of the bride’s Vakil, with their fathers’ names, their residence and their relationship with the bride:

(1) ……………………………………………………………………………….
(2) ……………………………………………………………………………….

(9) Name of the Vakil, if any, appointed by the bridegroom, his father’s name and his residence …………………………………….

(10) The names of the witnesses to the appointment of the bridegroom’s Vakil, with their father’s names and their residences :

(1) ……………………………………………………………………………….
(2) ……………………………………………………………………………….
(11) Names of the witnesses to the marriage, their father’s names and their residences:

(1) ……………………………………………………………………………….
(2) ……………………………………………………………………………….

(12) Date on which the marriage was contracted ………………….

(13)Amount of dower…………………………………………………………

(14) How much of the dower is mu’wajjal (prompt) and how much mu’ajjal (deferred)

(15) Whether any portion of the dower was paid at the time of marriage. If so, how much………………………

(16) Whether any property was given in lieu of the whole or any portion of the dower with specification of the same and its valuation agreed to between the parties:……………………………………………………………

(17) Special conditions, if any:…………………………………

(18) Whether the husband has delegated the power of divorce to the wife, if so, under what conditions?……………………………

(19) Whether the husband’s right of divorce in any way curtailed? ………………………………………………………………

(20) Whether any document was drawn up at the time of marriage relating to dower, maintenance, etc. If so contents thereof in brief : …………………………………………………………………………

(21) Whether the bridegroom has any existing wife, and if so, whether he has secured the permission of the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to contract another marriage : …………………………………………………………………..

(22) Number and date of the communication conveying to the bridegroom the permission of the Arbitration Council to contract another marriage: ……………………………………………

(23) Name and address of the person by whom the marriage was solemnized and his father. ……………………………………………

(24) Date of registration of marriage :

(25) Registration fee paid :……………………

Signature of the bridegroom
or his Vakil
………………………
Signature of the witness to the
appointment of bridge groom’s Vakil:
…………………………………….
Signature of the bride :
Signature of the wakil of the bride
………………………………………

Signature of the witness to the be
appointment of the wakil of the bride
………………………………
Signatures of the witnesses
to the marriage
(1) ……………………………………..
(2) ……………………………………..

Signature of the person who
solemnize the marriage

Signature and seal of the Nikah Registrar.
…………………………………………..
Seal.————

Some Relevant Judgement Summaries (Courtesy Pakistan Law Site)

Citation Name : 2022 CLC 24 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUJAHID KAMRAN

Side Opponent : Mst. SAIRA AZIZ

R.8(1)—Nikah—Proof—Witness, requirement of—Wakeel as witness—Apart from the spouses and their wakeel, if any, at least two witnesses are required to certify the proceedings of “Ijab o Qabool” and that should be conducted in one Majlis—Person who has been appointed as wakeel for the bride, cannot be the witness of Nikah—Wakeel has his specific identity as to accept the proposal on behalf of the bride—Nikahkhawan can also be the witness of the Nikah if he has also heard the “Ijab o Qabool” by himself.

Citation Name : 2022 MLD 416 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD QAYYUM ANJUM

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH

Ss.5 & 10—Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 10—Registration of marriage—Dower—Form of Nikahnama—Scope—Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, marriage is regarded as a civil contract and S. 5 thereof makes it necessary that the marriage shall be registered and the parties can settle their terms and conditions of marriage including dower, through said contract, for which Form II, used as Nikahnama, is prescribed in terms of R.10 of the Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—Relevant entries in such regard can be incorporated by the parties in columns Nos. 13 to 16, of Nikahnama which relate to dower—Any entry, by way of an amount or an undertaking related to transfer of any property or other valuable such as ornaments etc., is the dower or part thereof.

Citation Name : 2020 PLD 679 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. ASMA BIBI

Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE

Ss. 7 & 2(b)—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 3—SRO No. 1086(K)61, dated: 09-11-1961—Talaq—Territorial jurisdiction of Chairman—Scope—Petitioner/wife assailed validity of order passed by Chairman, Reconciliation Committee, whereby divorce to the petitioner was confirmed through an ex-parte order—Validity—Respondent/husband was permanently residing abroad and the petitioner was also there at the time of alleged talaq—Petitioner had categorically asserted in the petition, which was supported by an affidavit, that at the time of alleged pronouncement of talaq she was residing abroad, so as per SRO No.1086(K)61, dated: 09-11-1961, officers of Pakistan Mission abroad were authorized to discharge the functions of Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—Chairman, Reconciliation Committee, had no authority to exercise that authority which he had exercised—Divorce registration certificate and impugned order of confirmation were declared to be of no legal effect and value—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 180 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : WAQAS KHAN

Side Opponent : Dr. SEEMA HANIF

Ss. 177 & 179—Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.6—Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 21—Notification No. AO(LG)1(20)/81 dated 24-09-1992—Second marriage without permission of first wife—Second Nikah having been solemnized at Islamabad while first wife residing at Peshawar filed complaint at Peshawar—Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction but Appellate Court remanded the matter with the direction to proceed in accordance with law—Validity—Subsequent Nikah had been solemnized at Islamabad but wife-complainant was residing at Peshawar with her parents when husband contracted second marriage—Courts both at Islamabad as well as Peshawar had jurisdiction to try the offence—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 285 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Ms. SADAF MUNIR KHAN

Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE

S. 7—Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Notification/S.R.O. No.1086(K)/61, dated 09.11.1961—Divorce certificate, issuance of—Territorial jurisdiction of Chairman, Reconciliation Committee—Scope—Wife not residing in Pakistan at the time of pronouncement of ‘talaq’—Under R.3(b) of the Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (‘the Rules’) the basic factor which determined the jurisdiction of the Union Council and/or the Chairman for entertaining and proceeding on a notice of divorce (talaq) under subsection (1) of S.7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (`the Ordinance’) was the place where the wife was residing at the time of pronouncement of divorce (talaq)—Union Council and/or the Chairman, which would have jurisdiction in the matter would be the Union Council and/or the Chairman within whose territorial jurisdiction the wife was residing at the time of pronouncement of divorce (talaq)—At the time the husband, in the present case, was alleged to have pronounced divorce (talaq) upon the wife, both of them were permanently residing in a foreign country (United States of America), however, the husband was stationed in another foreign country (Germany) due to his job—In such circumstances the Chairman, Reconciliation Committee (based in Pakistan) did not have jurisdiction in the matter and erred in issuing the impugned Divorce Certificate—Since the husband and the wife were nationals of Pakistan and a foreign country (USA) and were permanently residing in said foreign country at the relevant time, therefore, the husband should have approached the authorized officer of the concerned Pakistan mission in the foreign country under S.7 of the Ordinance—Divorce certificate issued by the Chairman, Reconciliation Committee (based in Pakistan) was held to be of no legal effect and was accordingly set-aside—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 YLR 2548 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Ms. FARAH TAJ

Side Opponent : The SECRETARY, LOCAL BODIES

S. 6(5)(b)—Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.21—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.249-A—Quashing of proceedings–Bigamy, trial of—Complaint filed by petitioner against her ex-husband for not seeking her permission to contract second marriage prior to issuance of “Divorce Effective Certificate”, was dismissed—Petitioner (wife) sought direction to Secretary Union Council to file complaint against respondent (husband) on the allegation of bigamy—Validity—Petitioner initiated criminal case by filing private complaint herself before concerned Judicial Magistrate—Complaint was not competent according to R. 21 of Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—Trial Court in exercise of powers under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., acquitted respondent and petitioner did not assail the same, therefore, the same had attained finality—After proceeding was initiated by petitioner against respondent by filing private complaint in which he was acquitted, no other criminal proceeding for the same cause was possible—Only Union Council concerned was competent to file complaint in respect of offence of bigamy/polygamy and petitioner herself had no locus standi regarding the same—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 CLC 108 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : SANYA SAUD

Side Opponent : Khawaja SAUD MASUD

S. 7—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Talaq (divorce)—Wife residing aboard—Serving of notice on wife, effectiveness of—Arbitration Council, jurisdiction of—Proceedings for dissolution of marriage, custody of minor and equitable distribution of property initiated by wife (petitioner) in the foreign court—Husband (respondent) was alleged to have prepared a forged divorce deed in Pakistan with the intention to frustrate said proceedings before foreign court—Contentions of wife were that she was residing out of Pakistan and was not served notice of Talaq by Arbitration Council in accordance with section 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and that Arbitration Council, had failed to appreciate her objection about her non-residence within its territorial jurisdiction—Validity—Perusal of reply affidavit submitted by wife before foreign court showed that she had knowledge about pronouncement of Talaq and proceedings before the Arbitration Council in Pakistan—Rule 3(b) of West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, clearly provided that where at the time of pronouncement of Talaq, wife was not found available in any part of Pakistan, then the Union Council or Town, where she last resided, would have jurisdiction for the purposes of notice, therefore, contention of wife regarding jurisdiction needed no further discussion—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2012 CLC 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. RAZIA BEGUM

Side Opponent : JANG BAZ

Rr. 8, 9 & 10—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.85 & 87—Nikahnama, certified copy of—Admissibility in evidence—Scope—Duty of Nikah Registrar and system of remuneration payable to him would make him a ‘public officer’—Nikahnama being a public document could safely be relied upon—Such certified copy could be produced in evidence and would hold field in absence of rebuttal thereof.

Citation Name : 2010 CLC 258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : M. PARNIAN AROOJ

Side Opponent : MEHMOOD SADIQ

S. 7(1)—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Talaq—Non-service of notice of Talaq—Validity—Such non-service being a mere irregularity would not affect validity of a Talaq validly pronounced and communicated—Principles.

Citation Name : 2010 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Khawaja MUHAMMAD SHOAIB

Side Opponent : NAZIM UNION COUNCIL

Ss. 7 & 8— West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Notice of divorce—Territorial limits—Effect—Petitioner had challenged the notice of divorce filed by wife in the concerned Union Council on the ground that such notice was required to be filed at a place of residence of the spouse against whom such right was to be exercised—Wife controverted the assertions submitted by petitioner and contended that the provisions of R.3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 applied mutatis mutandis to wife and she could file such notice at the place where she resided—Validity—Language of the rule asserted by petitioner was to be given its literal interpretation and the right of divorce exercised either by husband or by wife had to be notified to the Union Council where the wife/woman resided at the relevant time—Section 8 read with S.7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 and R.3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 clearly showed that the Union Council within whose territorial limits the woman resided, had the requisite jurisdiction in the matter—High Court declined to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction

Citation Name : 2010 CLC 258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : M. PARNIAN AROOJ

Side Opponent : MEHMOOD SADIQ

S. 7(1)—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Talaq pronounced thrice in presence of witnesses and communicated to wife at her address and Union Council concerned—Failure of wife to participate in arbitration proceedings initiated by Union Council despite having notice thereof—Application by husband to Union Council for issuance of Talaq Certificate after expiry of requisite period of 90 days—Constitutional petition by wife seeking quashment of proceedings before Union Council—Validity—Petitioner herself had chosen not to attend arbitration proceedings initiated by Union Council—Petitioner had failed to show any lawful reason or justification to quash such proceedings or restrain Union Council from issuing such certificate to husband on expiry of 90 days—High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2010 CLC 258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : M. PARNIAN AROOJ

Side Opponent : MEHMOOD SADIQ

S. 7(1)—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Talaq, pronouncement of—Failure of parties to reconcile their differences despite lapse of three months—Effect—Law would presume an irretrievable break down of marriage—Principles.

Citation Name : 2010 YLR 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Khawaja MUHAMMAD SHOAIB

Side Opponent : NAZIM UNION COUNCIL

Citation Name : 2009 SCMR 1037 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : ZULFIQAR ALI

Side Opponent : Mst. SHAZIA BIBI

R. 7(1)—Constitution of Arbitration Council—Essentials—Where no representative was got appointed by the husband, in case of issuing a maintenance certificate for wife and minor children, and nothing was brought on the record that husband was issued a notice under R.7(1) of the West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 calling upon him to nominate his representative, the Arbitration Council was not a properly and validly constituted Council—Order upholding the certificate issued by such Council was set aside by Supreme Court.

Citation Name : 2009 YLR 903 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Haji MOIN AHMED

Side Opponent : NAZIM UNION COUNCIL NO.8

R. 7—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Cancellation of registration as “Nikah Registrar “—Petitioner had challenged cancellation of his registration as “Nikah Registrar”, alleging that cancellation order had been passed by the Authority without any rhyme or reason as no material was available on record to justify said cancellation—Submission of Authority was that there were certain complaints against the petitioner from the public and government officials; and that according to the requirement of registration of Nikah, the Registrar (petitioner) was required to submit the particulars in detail regularly to the concerned authorities which he had recited to the bridegrooms and brides, but despite several reminders by the Authority, the petitioner had failed to submit any detail of various Nikahs since 2003—Stand taken by the counsel far submission or non-submission of the record, could be resolved by giving directions that petitioner, would submit the entire record of 2001 upto the date of cancellation of licence and besides would also apply for renewal of Nikah Registration Certificate, while the Authority, would consider the same on the strength of record available and would see that its action should be based not only on the allegations or complaints, but there should be material proof in respect thereof—Such exercise was to be done within specified period—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 466 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Dr. ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN

Side Opponent : Mst. SAMINA KHAN

S. 42—Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.7 & 9–West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.16—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120—Suit for declaration—Certificate of Talaq issued on 16-6-1973 by Arbitration Council directed plaintiff to pay maintenance of $ 3,000 to defendant for Iddat period—Revision petition against Such certificate/orders filed in year 1986 was dismissed by Collector on 24-5-1988 as barred by time—Suit for declaration filed on 20-6-1989 challenging orders, dated 16-6-1973 and 24-5-1988—Limitation—Plaintiff had moved revision petition before Collector after 13 years—Orders of Arbitration Council and Collector were not void—Suit was dismissed as barred by time.

Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 1341 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Mst. BILQEES MAI

Side Opponent : ALLAH BAKHSH

S.42—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.8, Form-II—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Suit for declaration—Plaintiff claimed ownership of properties mentioned in Columns Nos.13 to 16 of Nikahnama being dower agreed upon by defendant (father of her husband)—Defendant also filed suit alleging such entries to be result of fraud—Trial Court consolidated both suits—Courts below dismissed plaintiff’s suit and decreed defendant’s suit, which decrees were maintained in revision by High Court—Validity—Original Nikahnama produced before Supreme Court through Nikah Khawan clearly indicated that there was manipulation in entries of columns Nos. 13 to 16 of Nikahnama—Courts below had rightly non-suited plaintiff by recording concurrent findings of fact—Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.

Citation Name : 2006 CLC 479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : WAJID ALI KHAN

Side Opponent : DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), D.C.O. OFFICE, LAHORE

—S. 9—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.6-A—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Recovery of maintenance allowance–Transfer of proceedings under S.9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, from one union council to other union council—Grievance of husband was that only that union council was competent to grant maintenance, in which wife was residing and such matter could not be transferred to any other union council—Validity—District Officer Revenue, under R.6-A of Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, could only change chairman of arbitration council nominating some other member of the same union council to be Chairman of arbitration council for that particular case—District Officer Revenue had no jurisdiction to transfer application under S.9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, from one union council to other union council—Decision given by union council other than the one where wife was residing, was without lawful authority having no jurisdiction and the transfer order passed by District Officer Revenue was also nullity in the eye of law—High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside both the orders and remanded the matter to the union council where wife was residing—Petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2005 PLD 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Maj. ZAHID HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, CANTONMENT BOARD, LAHORE

—S. 7—West Pakistan Rules Under The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3(b)—Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Notice of Talaq—Issuance of notice—Transfer of proceedings—Petitioner husband while posted at place where respondent wife also lived with him, issued notice of Talaq under S.7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 to Chairman Arbitration Council at place “L”, copy of which was remitted to respondent, who at relevant time was residing in that area—On application of respondent, Chairman Arbitration Council transferred proceedings to Nazim Union Council it place `S’ where respondent alleged that she was residing there, without calling upon petitioner to explain. as to why matter/proceedings be not transferred to place “S” as prayed for by the respondent—Rule 3(b) of West Pakistan Rules Under The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had clearly envisaged that Chairman concerned would mean Chairman of Union Council of Union or Town in which wife at the time of pronouncement of Talaq was residing and not the Chairman to whose jurisdiction she subsequently shifted her abode—According to claim of petitioner, respondent was residing within area “L” when he pronounced Talaq—Petitioner, in circumstances, had correctly remitted notice to Chairman Arbitration Council at place “L” who, without determining that aspect of matter, remitted file to place “S” on simple request of respondent—No provision existed of transfer of notice of divorce by Chairman Union/Town Council either in Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 or in Rules framed thereunder—In absence of any such provision, transfer of matter/proceedings regarding divorce by Chairman Arbitration Council, was without jurisdiction—Order of transfer of proceedings, was declared to be illegal, void and of no legal effect with the result that notice of divorce by petitioner would be deemed to be pending before Chairman Arbitration Council at place “L” who would decide matter again, accordingly.

Citation Name : 2005 CLC 481 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TALAT IQBAL KHAN through General Attorney

Side Opponent : TANVIR BATOOL through Wasim Iqbal,

—-Ss. 1(2) & 7—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Dissolution of marriage, notice of—Nationality of parties—Authorities received notice of divorce from husband but having come to know that the wife was British national and the husband had acquired nationality of Zimbabwe, declined to proceed any, further under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961–Validity—Nothing to such effect was on record nor it had been urged by the parties that they had ceased to be citizens of Pakistan or if so in what circumstances and through what process—In absence of such express relinquishment of Pakistani citizenship, both the parties would continue to fall within the ambit of S.1(2) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—All the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, were applicable to the parties—Order passed by the authorities was set aside and the case was remanded to them for proceeding on the notice of divorce—Petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2004 YLR 239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mirza ALLAH DITTA alias MIRZA JAVED AKHTAR

Side Opponent : Mst. AMNA BIBI

—-S. 5—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, Rr.10, 11, 12 & 13—Registration of Nikah, not a requirement of law for a valid Nikah.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1441 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MAZHAR HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : NAZIM UNION COUNCIL, BHALWAL

—-S.5—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.7– Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199– Constitutional petition—Registration of marriage, seeking cancellation of —Validity– No provisions existed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and Rules to cancel registration on marriage — Nazim of concerned Union Council had no jurisdiction to cancel the same—Legal sanctity was attached to such certificate under R.7 of the Rules—Solemnization of marriage in Pakistan was not disputed by spouses, which was a valid marriage—Marriage Certificate had not been challenged by any party, thus, there was no need to correct the same—High Court disposed of Constitutional petition accordingly.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 3332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN

Side Opponent : KHIZER HAYAT

—-S. 5 (2)—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.7(3)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Grant of licence to act as Nikah Registrar—Revocation of said licence—On a complaint that respondent Nikah Registrar had committed certain irregularities in performing his duties as Nikah Registrar, an inquiry was held by Secretary, Union Council after notice to the Nikah Registrar but he did not appear–Inquiry Officer conducted ex parte inquiry and submitted his report to the Administrator of Union Council and on said report licence was cancelled by Administrator and same was issued in favour of petitioner/complainant without issuing any notice to the previous Nikah- Registrar (the respondent)—Said order of the. Administrator was set aside by the District Collector on the ground that respondent was condemned unheard by the Administrator—Petitioner had contended that as no remedy of appeal or revision was provided under the Ordinance and the Rules, revision filed by respondent before District Collector against cancellation of licence, was not maintainable—Contention of petitioner had merit, but as the Administrator while canceling licence had not issued any notice to the respondent and condemned him unheard his order was without lawful authority—Interference of High Court, however, in circumstances, would result in restoring an illegal order—Case was essentially of judicial restraint despite defect in jurisdiction of District Collector—District Collector while accepting revision of respondent set aside order of Administrator but did not issue consequential directions–High Court though did not incline to exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction against revisional order of District Collector, but directed that Administrator would decide the matter afresh after hearing the concerned parties.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 250 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : HUSSANA

Side Opponent : GHUFRANIA

—-S.5—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.10, Form II—Property given in lieu of dower–Execution of dower deed separately–Validity—If marriage was registered under the provisions of S.5 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, any property transferred to the bride by her father-in-law in lieu of dower would have been mentioned in Nikah Nama prescribed in form II of West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and in such case there was no need to execute a dower deed separately—Property mentioned in Nikah Nama would stand transferred in the name of the bride.

Citation Name : 2002 CLC 1405 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AMIN

Side Opponent : DISTRICT NAZIM, FAISALABAD

West Pakistan Rules Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 —–7(3)—Licence of Nikah Registrar—Nature of such licence Revocation Conditions Licence to act as Nikah Registrar is granted under the provisions of R.7 of the West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 as such the licence is permanent in nature and can be revoked only for violation of any of the conditions of the licence.

Citation Name : 2002 CLC 1838 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Maj. (Rtd.).ISHTIAQ MAHMOOD

Side Opponent : Mst. ZAREEN GUL

—-S. 9—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3—Application for maintenance allowance before Chairman, Arbitration Council—Chairman, Arbitration Council had no authority in law to grant maintenance beyond the period applied for.

Citation Name : 2000 YLR 2882 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : HASEENA

Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DERA GHAZI KHAN

West Pakistan Rules Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 —-R.8—Constituiton of Pakistan (1973), Art.11 —Entry in Column No.16 of -Nikahnama showing “in lieu of sister of ‘bridegroom”—Validity—Such entry being against Art. II of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) which had forbidden slavery was ‘violative of the basic status of an individual as a human being.

Citation Name : 2000 CLC 1258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Side Opponent : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF UNION COUNCILS, BAHAWALPUR

5. 5(2)—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.7—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition-.–Grant of licence to Nikah Registrar—Cancellation—Authority, after thorough inquiry appointed petitioner as Nikah Registrar of the area concerned and granted him licence in that respect—Authority only after 13 days, cancelled the licence granted to petitioner without any reason and without recording any finding about contravention of any condition of licence on part of petitioner—Licence of Nikah Registrar granted to the petitioner was permanent and could be revoked or cancelled only for contravention of any of conditions of licence as provided under R.7(3), West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—In absence of any finding about contravention of any of the conditions of licence, order cancelling licence granted to petitioner, passed without hearing the petitioner was set aside by High Court being illegal and passed without lawful authority.

Citation Name : 1999 MLD 1008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AAMIR NASEEM KHAN

Side Opponent : COLLECTOR, LAHORE DISTRICT, LAHORE

—-S.9—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 R.5—Maintenance allowance, grant of—Arbitration Council was constituted, but order granting maintenance allowance was passed and signed only by Chairman, Arbitration Council—Order passed by Chairman, Arbitration Council did not show concurrence of members of Arbitration Council or dissent by any of them whereas under R.5(6) of West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, decision of Arbitration Council was to be taken by majority which meant to include the members in taking the decision, their concurrence or dissent—Where a Council or Tribunal would take a decision or make an order when it was not constituted in accordance, with law, it would act without jurisdiction as it lacked lawful authority to exercise power of taking the decision and decision or order passed by such an Authority or Tribunal, would be an act coram non judice—Decision under the Law under which it was set up by Authority or a body exercising judicial or quasi Judicial powers, which was not properly constituted was not a decision of the Competent Authority—Order signed by Chairman, Arbitration Council alone, not only was improper, but also was illegal and was liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

Citation Name : 1994 SCMR 1978 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : ZUBAIDA BIBI

Side Opponent : MAJIDAN

—-S. 2(17)—West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.9—“Public Officer”–‘Nikah Registrar” is a public officer.

Citation Name : 1993 PLD 810 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUDASSAR ALTAF

Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISIONER

S. 9 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Pre amble — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181 — West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.6(2)–Proceedings before Arbitration. Council–Application for grant of maintenance–Limitation—Provision of Art.181, Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable in relation to application for grant of maintenance — Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, having not been made applicable to proceedings before Arbitration Council such proceedings are governed by the Rules framed under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance– Limitation provided under Art.181, Limitation Act, 1908, thus, has no relevancy to application for grant of maintenance under S.9, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.

Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1356 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED AKHTAR

Side Opponent : COLLECTOR

S.9 — West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.16 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — Limitation for filing revision against order of maintenance passed by Arbitration Council being thirty days, revision filed beyond period of one month would be barred by time — Petitioner had been appearing be fore Arbitration Council, on certain dates but subsequently absented himself — No justification was pointed out for not challenging order of Arbitration Council within time — Petitioner having failed to avail of statutory remedy within time and his revision having been dismissed as barred by time, he could not challenge order of Arbitration Council on merits before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction — Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1393 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : PARVEEN AKHTAR

Side Opponent : GHULAM AKBAR

West Pakistan Rules Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 R. 16 — Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.9 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11-Order for grant of maintenance — First revision was dismissed not on merits b4 on ground that respondent had failed to file copy of order in question, along with revision petition — Competency to file second revision — Decision of first revision being not on merits could not operate as res judicata nor same could debar a party from re-agitating the same matter through properly constituted proceedings.

Citation Name : 1991 CLC 1395 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : RIAZ ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : KAUSAR BIBI

S. 9 — West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, R.16– Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 — Non-speaking order passed by Revisional Authority—Effect — Order for maintenance having been passed against petitioner, revision filed by him, had not been decided in accordance with law — Revisional order did not show any application -of mind by Collector to the respective contentions of parties which had been noted by him — Revision was disposed of by making a laconic observation that there is no justification for interfering in the order of Chairman, Arbitration Council — Such disposal of contentious matter involving valuable rights of litigants could not be countenanced in law — Order passed by a judicial/quasi-judicial authority must not only manifest independent application of mind but should also contain reasons in support of the same — Failure to do so would result in vitiating such order.

Citation Name : 1991 MLD 2375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : BILQIS BANO

Side Opponent : GHULAM RASOOL

—-S. 9—West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 16—Revision, competency of—Revision against order of Arbitration Council granting maintenance to wife was admitted and accepted by Collector despite same was instituted beyond prescribed period of thirty days and objection as to limitation was specifically raised before Collector—Order passed by Collector, in revision, without adverting to aspect of limitation, could not be sustained.

Citation Name : 1988 CLC 1641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ANWARI BEGUM ALIAS KHALIDA ANWAR

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR

West Pakistan Rules Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 –R. 5(7)–Evidence Act (I of 1872)–Copy of notice of Talaq though Paced on record, was neither proved nor exhibited in Court–Effect–proceedings before Family court were both adversary and inquisitorial–Where a party failed to perform a technical act, it would be duty of Court to make necessary inquiry if question between parties was of substantial nature–Court is duty bound to frame correct issues and also to take note of any material lying on its own record in connection with a question of real controversy between parties-Technical rules c f Evidence Act, however, would not in term apply to proceedings before Family Court.

Citation Name : 1987 PLD 316 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUQARRAB JAHAN BEGUM

Side Opponent : SIKANDAR ALI KHAN

S.6(5)(a)–West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961,R.3 (a)–Provisions of S.6(5)(a) mandatory–Person contracting second marriage in violation of S.6(5)(a) and rules, held, would be liable to be visited by a penalty to the effect that entire amount of dower shall become immediately payable and to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Citation Name : 1987 SCMR 390 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : M. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

Side Opponent : INAYATULLAH, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, LAHORE

—Art. 185(3)–Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.- 9–West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 6-Maintenance, grant of–Nominated representative–Authority of–Leave to appeal granted to consider whether a representative nominated by a party on Arbitration Council acts thereon s quasi-judicial authority being charged with duty of taking part :a decision of Council or is merely like an agent of said party, who may, inter alia, withdraw an application submitted by party himself, concede claim of other party and do all acts which party itself is competent to do.

Citation Name : 1987 PLD 670 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : NAHEED FATIMA

Side Opponent : AMIR AZAM RIZVI

S. 7–West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.3 (b)–Divorce–Shia law–Husband sent written divorce to wife and further confirmed it through letters–Intimation in respect of divorce also sent to Chairman Union Committee who after waiting for statutory period of ninety days ordered divorce to become effective–Notice in respect of proceedings before Chairman sent to wife who raised no objection thereto and allowed divorce to become final–Wife, held, could not be permitted to challenge order of Chairman on ground that Talaq was not pronounced on her orally.

Citation Name : 1986 PCRLJ 1510 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : SUBEDAR MALIK SHER MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : THE STATE

—S. 6–West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, r. 21–Polygamy–omplaint–Courts in Baluchistan have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on accusation of polygamy unless complaint was made by concerned Union Committee–Complaint filed by private complainant, held, was not maintainable.–[Complaint].

Citation Name : 1985 CLC 649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAJEEB

Side Opponent : TALAT SHAANAZ

S.9–West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, r.6–Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9–Maintenance–Ex parte order passed by Chairman, Arbitration Council, against petitioner (husband) and affirmed by Collector–Husband neither heard nor properly served before passing of such ex parte order against him–No ground existed for passing ex parte order–Orders passed by Chairman and Collector, held, suffered from serious legal infirmity in circumstances- Orders set aside and case remitted for redecision to Chairman after affording opportunity of hearing to parties.

Citation Name : 1983 PLD 615 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : EJAZ MAHMOOD

Side Opponent : HUMAIRA

R. 21-Aggrieved person-Petitioner contracting second marriage duping second wife by not disclosing that he was a married person and without prior permission for entering second marriage-Petitioner if had obtained prior permission for entering into second marriage respondent (second wife) would have definitely come to know and in that case might not have married petitioner-Second wife, held, aggrieved person in circumstances of case-Contention that only first wife is aggrieved person in terms of r. 21, has no force.

Citation Name : 1982 PLD 239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANIF

Side Opponent : COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR

Read with West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, r. 16 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2) Revision petition-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Applicability of S. 5 of Limitation Act-Mere fact that Ordinance, a special enactment, does not expressly exclude application of S. 5 of Limitation Act to proceedings thereunder-Held, would, by itself, not extend application of S. 5 of Limitation Act to such proceedings-Section 5 of Limitation Act, held, not available for seeking condonation of delay in submission of revision petition under Ordinance.-[Interpretation of statutes].

Citation Name : 1982 PLD 532 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MASOOD KHAN

Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL WAH

R..’3-Words and phrases-Words `last resided’ and `permanently residing’, import of-Permanent or quasi-permanent abode, howsoever short stay therein may be, held, constitutes residence for purposes of sub-clause (i) of r. 3 of Rules-Person obliged to leave his place of residence and going to some other place on an occasional visit, place of such visit, held further, cannot be considered as, his residence. [Words and phrases]. –

Citation Name : 1977 PLD 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AKHTAR HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : COLLECTOR, LAHORE, ETC.

Citation Name : 1977 PLD 458 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Side Opponent : MUMTAZ BEGUM

–R. 3(c)-Jurisdiction-Respondent wife at time of making application for maintenance before Union Council giving her address at J but for purposes of address mentioning her casual residence at W-Petitioner husband also in his revision application giving J as residence of respondent wife and for purpose of her address mentioning W with pre-fix “at present”-Held : Residence of wife, in context, would mean permanent and/or ordinary and not casual residence Parties originally coming from J, residence of wife at time of making application, at J though on a casual visit at W-Union Council at J possessed of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide maintenance application of wife in circumstances.-[Jurisdiction].

Citation Name : 1971 PCRLJ 148 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : NAZABAT

Side Opponent : THE STATE AND ANOTHER

—-Ss. 3 & 6 read with West Pakistan Rules under Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, r. 3-Polygamy Permission to contract second marriage-Only Union Council of existing residence of wife at time of application empowered to grant such permission-Accused contracting second marriage pursuant to permission from Union Council of his oWn residenceCase fell within mischief of subsection (5) of S. 6 of Ordinance, Complaint filed by Union Council of wife’s residence in Court having jurisdiction over area-Held : Competent.

THE WEST PAKISTAN RULES UNDER MUSLIM FAMILY LAWS ORDINANCE, 1961 10th July 1961

THE WEST PAKISTAN RULES UNDER MUSLIM FAMILY LAWS ORDINANCE, 1961

10th July 1961

You missed

THE
WEST PAKISTAN RULES UNDER MUSLIM FAMILY LAWS
ORDINANCE, 1961