| Case ID |
4288de44-efa3-4a1c-8a7b-73cb0ef983d4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
May 19, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
May 10, 2017 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court upheld the Family Court's decision to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The appellant's arguments were found to lack merit, as the evidence presented by the respondent regarding the husband's conduct was compelling and remained unchallenged. The court ruled that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction over matters of dower, maintenance, and dissolution of marriage, affirming the validity of the decrees for maintenance and recovery of dowry articles. The appeal was dismissed, and the previous rulings were upheld, reinforcing the importance of the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir deliberated on a family dispute concerning the dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and dower issues. The case revolved around allegations of cruelty by the husband, leading to the wife's petition for divorce and recovery of financial support. The Family Court had previously ruled in favor of the wife, granting her a dissolution of marriage, maintenance allowance, and recovery of dower articles. The appellant contested the decision, arguing procedural irregularities and lack of evidence for cruelty. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence provided by the respondent to be substantial and unrefuted. This case emphasizes the jurisdictional authority of Family Courts in handling matrimonial matters and the legal recognition of cruelty as a valid ground for divorce. The court's ruling reinforced the principles established in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993, aiming for expeditious resolutions in family law disputes. This case is significant for its interpretations of the law regarding dower and maintenance, particularly in the context of marital cruelty. It also highlights the procedural requirements and the importance of proper representation in court. |
| Court |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN,
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL
|
| Lawyers |
Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan,
Sardar Shamshad Hussain Khan
|
| Petitioners |
SHAHZAD RAUF
|
| Respondents |
SHABANA YASMIN
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 667,
2018 PLD 31
|
| Other Citations |
Benazir v. Khalil Ahmed and 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 285/2014, decision date: 26-3-2015 overruled),
Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din and another v. Noor Dad and 4 others PLD 1988 SC(AJ&K) 42,
Fozia Hussain Abbasi v. The Nomination Board through Chairman and 4 others 1995 CLC 1761,
Nargis Begum and 5 others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 1983 CLC 2923,
Muhammad Munshi and others v. Mst. Rakiya Bi 1990 CLC 301,
Muhammad Tariq v. Mst. Shaheen and 2 others PLD 2006 Pesh. 189,
Muhammad Ajaib v. Tasleem Wakeel 2013 MLD 305,
Liaquat Ali v. Additional District Judge, Narowal and 2 others 1997 SCMR 1122,
Mst. Razia Begum v. Jang Baz and 3 others 2012 CLC 105,
Ayesha Bibi v. Muhammad Faisal and 2 others PLD 2014 Lah. 498
|
| Laws Involved |
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993,
Family Courts Act, 1993
|
| Sections |
5,
13
|