Image

Constitutional Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Pakistan:

Whereas in fling of Constitutional petition lapse of time or question of laches is to be examined on equitable principles for reason that exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is always in nature of equitable relief. Petitioner had invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court after a lapse of four years in case of suit for dissolution of marriage in Pakistan. Petitioner invoking Constitutional jurisdiction is guilty of contumacious lethargy, inaction, laxity and gross negligence' in enforcement of her right. Petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of delay in case of dissolution of marriage in Pakistan. Notwithstanding recording of evidence of parties- Pronounce the judgment. Deviation in procedure under family courts Act notwithstanding recording of evidence of parties. Pronounce the judgment. Family Court under S. 12 of Act, 1964 is required that it would make yet another effort to effect compromise or reconciliation between parties and if even at such stage compromise or reconciliation the parties was not possible, only thereafter, Court was to announce its judgment and to give decree.


More you need to know for Dissolution of Marriage:

Dissolution of marriage-Required to be decided in speedy manner. Object of Evidence Act is to shorten agony of litigant parties and to provide them justice as early as could be possible. Matter pertaining to Family Court be of suit for dissolution of marriage in Pakistan, restitution of conjugal rights, entitlement of a child or children or of wife to maintenance, payment of dower, all such issues were required to be decided in speedy manner, because no such issue can be left undecided for decades, because a minor seeking maintenance, might become major by time case was decided by Family Court or a wife seeking dissolution of marriage. Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles should be decided quickly. Plaintiff filed suit for divorce in Pakistan and recovery of dowry articles or its value to the sum of Rs.396, 250 along with gold ornaments. Defendants contested suit on the ground that he had returned dowry articles to the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses.

Trial Court Order for This Case:

Trial Court ordered in suit of the plaintiff for recovery of dowry articles or Rs.201,100 as its price thereof except articles which were given as gift. Both parties filed appeals in appellate courts which were rejected by Appellate Court vide consolidated judgment and judgement. Stand of defendant of return of dowry articles was outside the scope of his pleadings; s0 it could not be legally considered. Defendant failed to submit any receipt of return of dowry articles to the plaintiff. Defendant had failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of material evidence which might have affected both the judgments and decrees of both Courts below including High Court declined to interfere in Constitutional writ jurisdiction. Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the extent of dissolution of marriage.


Suit for Recovery of Dowry and Maintenance Allowance:

Suit for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance and for dissolution of marriage Suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the extent of dissolution of marriage, but rest of the relief as prayed for by then plaintiff was declined. Contention of the defendant was that if at all the plaintiff was considered entitled for the decree of divorce in Pakistan, it could have been passed on the basis of Khula; as he had asserted in her plaint about the immense aversion against the defendant; and had also refused to live as wife with the defendant. Defendant had asserted that in such circumstances, the Trial Court was duty bound to order divorce in Pakistan