| Case ID |
4512ac35-7766-4d41-88c5-52a7edee0eb3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular Second Appeal No. 110 of 197 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 18, 1959 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The second appeal is dismissed with costs. The plaintiff, Ghulam Muhammad, is not entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against Mst. Shah Jira Khanam as the marriage was irregular under Muslim Personal Law. The court held that the marriage between Ghulam Muhammad and Mst. Shah Jira Khanam occurred during her iddat period, rendering it invalid and establishing a valid defense against the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was denied. |
| Summary |
In the Lahore High Court case titled Regular Second Appeal No. 110 of 197, dated September 18, 1959, Justice S. A. Mahmood adjudicated a dispute between petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and respondent Mst. Shah Jira Khanam. The core issue revolved around the restitution of conjugal rights, where the petitioner sought to nullify the respondent's refusal to return to marital relations. The court examined the validity of the marriage under Muslim Personal Law, particularly focusing on the iddat period—a mandatory waiting period after divorce or widowhood before remarriage. Mst. Shah Jira Khanam had remarried Ghulam Muhammad within the iddat period following her divorce from Farzand Ali, leading to the court declaring the marriage irregular and void. Citing sections 23, 23A, and Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), the court reinforced that marriages performed during the iddat period are invalid, thereby providing a strong legal defense against the petitioner's claims. The decision referenced several precedents, including Secretary of State v. Akbar Shah and Mst. Bakht Bibi v. Qaim Din, to substantiate the ruling. Ultimately, the court dismissed the second appeal, ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights due to the irregularity of the marriage. This landmark judgment underscores the importance of adhering to personal law regulations concerning marriage and iddat periods in Pakistan's legal framework, ensuring that such protocols are strictly followed to maintain the sanctity and legality of marital relations. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Ali Akbar,
Allah Dad,
Ghulam Muhammad,
Muhammad Khan,
Farzand Ali,
Abdur Rahman,
Mst. Shah Jira Khanam,
Madad Shah,
Hukam Dad
|
| Judges |
S. A. MAHMOOD
|
| Lawyers |
Shah Rahman Ansari,
S. M. Bashir
|
| Petitioners |
Ghulam Muhammad
|
| Respondents |
Mst. Shah Jira Khanam
|
| Citations |
1959 SLD 131,
1959 PLD 1014
|
| Other Citations |
Secretary of State v. Akbar Shah A I R 1934 Lah. 753 rel.,
Mst. Bakht Bibi and another v. Qaim Din and others (A I R 1934 Lah. 907),
Mst. Bibi v. The Empress (43 P R 1882),
para. 206 of Principles of Muhammadan Law by Mulla, 10th Edition,
Mst. Ruro v. Bagh Singh and others (157 I C 779),
Muhammad Hayat v. Muhammad Nawaz and others (I L R 17 Lah. 48 (D B)),
Jhandu v. Mst. Hussain Bibi and others (I L R 4 Lah. 192 (D B)),
Ilahia v. Imam Din and another (29 P R 1909)
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
23,
23A,
OrderXLI
|