| Case ID |
80dd5533-c5b7-458a-9b6c-0abafaa80b97 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Constitution Petition No. S-573 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 15, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 13, 2021 |
| Decision |
The petition was dismissed as the concurrent findings of the two lower courts did not require interference. The case involved a dispute over maintenance charges, where the petitioner admitted to initially sending maintenance to the respondent but later failed to arrange for her to live with him. The court emphasized that despite the lack of rukhsati, the respondent was entitled to maintenance under Islamic law until the iddah period. The findings of the lower courts were upheld as they were consistent with the law and the facts presented. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Constitution Petition No. S-573 of 2020, decided by the Sindh High Court on October 15, 2021, the court addressed critical issues related to the Family Courts Act, 1964, particularly concerning maintenance obligations in marriages where rukhsati has not occurred. The petitioner, Najam-ur-Rehman, challenged the decisions of two lower courts that ruled in favor of the respondent, Masooma Hassan, regarding maintenance payments. The key argument revolved around whether the husband was liable to provide maintenance despite the absence of rukhsati. The court examined the principles of Islamic law and the Family Courts Act, ultimately affirming that the husband must fulfill his financial obligations even in the absence of physical cohabitation. This case underscores the importance of adhering to legal and moral responsibilities within marital relationships, particularly in Islamic jurisprudence. The court's decision aligns with the Quranic injunctions regarding the treatment of spouses and emphasizes the need for equitable treatment in cases of marital discord. The ruling serves as a crucial reference point for future cases involving maintenance disputes in Islamic family law, highlighting the necessity for spouses to uphold their commitments and the legal protections available to women in such situations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
NAJAMUR-REHMAN
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
MASOOMA HASSAN
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 1031,
2023 CLC 991
|
| Other Citations |
Ghulam Maohy-ud-Din v. Naveed-uz-Zafar Malik (1992 ALD 506),
Abdul Rehman v. Khalida Bi and 2 others (1980 CLC 1098),
Syed Rashid Ali Shah v. Mst. Haleema Bibi and 2 others (PLD 2014 Peshawar 26)
|
| Laws Involved |
Family Courts Act, 1964
|
| Sections |
5
|