In the Court of Mr.

Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar,

Additional District Judge, Lahore.

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Family appeal (maintenance).

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Family appeal (Dower).

Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. The above captioned two appeals are pending adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court in which next date of hearing is
fixed as 1/10/99 for notice to the Respondents.

2. That Muhammad Asad has received a Notice from this

Hon’ble Court in a case titled “Muhammad Asad Vs Mehr
Allah Bukhsh” in which date of hearing is fixed as 7/9/99.
(Original Notice attached).

3. That no case as titled in the notice is pending before this

Hon’ble Court.

4. That it is presumed that there might be a clerical mistake in

the “title of the case” as mentioned in the notice.

5. That it is further presumed that it might be a miscellaneous

application, having been moved by the opposite party in
which date is fixed as 7/9/99. Had the copy of such matter
been attached with the notice, I would have been able to
 submit written reply of the same.

6. That I, Zafar Iqbal Khan Advocate, Council for the

appellant, has recently undergone two surgical operations
and still is hospitalized to reduce severe pain. Doctors put
me under seductive injections keeping me all the time in
drowsiness or in sleep. As such I am unable to travel to
Lahore and to pursue the case.

7. That I am expected to be recovered from illness within a

period of three weeks and I Shall definitely appear before
this Hon’ble Court on 1/10/99, date already fixed for the
above mentioned two appeals.

8. That apart from the appeals, if there is some other matter

fixed for 7/9/99, the same may very graciously be adjourned
and be fixed for 1/10/99 for submission of reply and
arguments. I promise not to seek further adjournment in this
case.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed

(i) In the interest of justice, herein of the matter
pertaining to the notice fixed for 7/9/99 (notice
attached) may be adjourned and be fixed for 1/10/99,
date already fixed for the two appeals.

(ii) Applicant be directed to issue me a copy of the said

matter to enable me to submit reply and arguments in
the fixed date, just to avoid further delay.

Yours obediently,

Zafar Iqbal Khan

Advocate High Court.
Street No. 8 Usmanabd
Colony, Multan.
 In the Court of Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar,
Additional District Judge, Lahore.

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz & another.

Family appeal (maintenance).

Muhammad Asad Versus Humaira Naz

Family appeal (Dower).

Application for seeking adjustment of hearing.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Zafar Iqbal Advocate High Court, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare that the contents of the above
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -

Verified on oath at Multan, this_____

day of September, 1999 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

W.P. No. _______________/2000

Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal

Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Mst. Humera Naz daughter of Mian Khuda Bakhsh, caste
Kanjoo.
2. Maste Usama (minor) S/o Muhammad Asad, caste Siyal
Bharwana, through Mst. Humera Naz (his real mother).
Both residents of 504, M Block, Model Town Extension Scheme,
Lahore.
3. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar, Additional District Judge, Lahore.
4. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, Civil Judge/Judge Family, Lahore.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the petitioner and respondent No. 1 married together at
Chaniyot Tehsil & District Jhang on 21.10.94. Respondent
No. 2, the only issue, was born on 26.9.95 out of the wedlock.
Thereafter, the petitioner, through a written divorce deed
dated 12.2.98, divorced irrevocably to respondent No. 1 by
pronouncing “Talaq” thrice in one sitting. Photocopy of
written divorce deed is attached as Annexure “A”.

2. That the respondents No. 1 & 2, on 10.3.98 filed a suit against

the petitioner for grant of maintenance allowance in the Court
of Family Judge, Lahore. Another suit for recovery of Dower
 amount was also filed by respondent No. 1 against the
petitioner in the same Court. Copy of the plaint in
maintenance suit is Annexure “B”.

3. That the petitioner contested both the suits. The learned Judge,
Family Court consolidated both the suits and framed
following consolidated issues on 20.3.99: -
No. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for
maintenance allowance; if so, at what rate and for which
period. OPP.
No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
recovery of dower amount of Rs. 105,000/- as prayed for.
OPP.
No. 3. Relief.

4. That after recording the evidence of parties and hearing

arguments, the learned Judge, Family Court decreed both the
suits in favour of the respondents vide single consolidated
judgment dated 5.7.99 impugned. Respondent No. 1 was
allowed past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per
month w.e.f. September 1995 to 6.12.1998 plus the period of
“Iddat” i.e. three months. The total amount of maintenance
was worked out by the learned court as Rs. 420,000/-
Rs. 1500/- per month was fixed as past maintenance
allowance for respondent No. 2 (minor) from September 1995
to July 1999 which was worked out by the learned Court as
Rs. 63,000/-. Respondent No. 2 was also allowed future
maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month
with 10% annual increase till arising of any legal disability.
It was further ordered that Rs. 15,000/- which were admittedly
paid by the petitioner to the respondents in lieu of
maintenance shall be adjusted from the past maintenance
allowance of respondent No. 1. Copy of judgment of the Trial
Court is annexed as Annexure “C” & copy of decree as
Annexure “C/1”. Copies of plaintiff’s oral & documentary
evidence are Annexure “D” & “D/1” respectively. Copies of
 defendant’s oral as well as documentary evidence are
Annexure “E” & “E/1” respectively.

5. That aggrieved of the judgment and decree, the petitioner/

defendant filed two separate appeals against the decrees of
dower and maintenance in the Court of learned District Judge,
Lahore. A third appeal was also filed on behalf of respondent
No. 2 /minor/plaintiff seeking enhancement of quantum of
maintenance. All the three appeals were heard and disposed
off by respondent No. 3 vide one consolidated judgment dated
8.4.2000 whereby he dismissed the two appeals filed by the
petitioner and accepted minor’s appeal by modifying the
decree for maintenance allowance enhancing the quantum of
maintenance from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Copy
of memo of appeal is Annexure “F”. Copy of Memo of appeal
of respondent No. 2 is Annexure “G”. Copy of consolidated
Appellate Judgment and decree is Annexure “H & H/1”.

6. That both the judgment and decrees passed by respondent No.

3 and respondent No. 4 are illegal and without lawful
authority inter alia on the following

GROUNDS

i) Under Article 2-A of the Constitution, matter of

maintenance is to be decided according to Muslim Law.
Under Muslim Law there is no scope for grant of past
maintenance to wife and child. The learned Judge
family Court as well as Appellate Court had no
jurisdiction to grant past maintenance to respondent No.
1 & 2 for the period from September 1995 to 10.3.1998
when the suit was filed. The impugned judgment and
decree of both the learned Courts below are against the
injunctions of Islam, therefore, illegal.

ii) That the petitioner pronounced “TALAQ” thrice in one

sitting and sent the written divorce deed dated 12.2.98
to the respondent No. 1. This irrevocable divorce had
 become effective immediately on its execution. Sec.
313 of Muhammadan Law reads: “Divorce in writing
operates an irrevocable divorce and takes effect
immediately on its execution.” Sec. 7 of the Muslim
Family Law Ordinance 1961 providing for the
effectiveness of Talaq on receipt of notice by the
Chairman is against the injunctions of Quran and
Sunnah. In 1992 SCMR 1273 it was held: “Muslim
Family Laws Ordinance-sec. 7 read with Article 2(a) of
the Constitution”---- A divorce becomes effective even
in absence of notice to the Chairman u/s 7.
Ineffectiveness of divorce, in the absence of a notice to
the Chairman as envisaged by sec. 7 was against
injunctions of Islam. 1990 CLC 1983 and PLD 1988
Kar. 169 at 173 it was held that sec. 7 of the Muslim
Family Law ordinance relating to divorce are repugnant
to injunctions of Islam. In a recent Judgment of the
Federel Shariat Court PLD 2000 FSC 1 it is held that
sec. 7 (3) (5) of Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961
are repugnant to injunctions of Islam.

iii) That in view of the above-mentioned law declared by

the Superior Courts, divorce to respondent No. 1 was
effective from the date 12.2.98 it was written and sent
to her as such her suit for recovery of maintenance filed
on 10.3.98 was not maintainable. Sec. 278 of
Muhammadan Law reads: “If the husband neglects or
refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause,
the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not
entitled to a decree for past maintenance, unless
claim is based on a specific agreement.” In NLR 1991
SD 347 it was held: “Maintenance to wife under
Islamic law. There is no scope for past maintenance to
wife. In 1990 MLD 344 at 345 (e) “Suit for
maintenance by a divorced wife is not maintainable”.
Both the learned Courts below had failed to consider
 this legal aspect of the matter and as such the judgment
and decrees of both the Courts below are illegal.

iv) That suit for maintenance of the minor child was also
not maintainable, as there was no refusal or neglect on
the part of he father/petitioner to maintain his child.
Respondent No. 1 had admitted before court that
petitioner had paid her Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance
allowance for the child after his birth. It was further
admitted by respondent No. 1 that gold ornaments were
also given to her by the petitioner at the time of
marriage. This was explained by the petitioner that on
the asking of her parents, these ornaments were given to
her not as a gift, but just to enhance the prestige of her
family in the “Bradri” of the respondent and these
ornaments were returnable to the petitioner afterwards.
But admittedly, these ornaments, the price of which is
Rs. 250,000/- are with the respondent No. 1 which
amount is more than sufficient for the maintenance of
child even till he attains majority. The learned Court
below had failed to take note of these material
admissions of the respondent No. 1 and as such had
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.

v) That the petitioner for the purpose of bringing his child

up had made an application for the custody of the minor
firstly to the learned Guardian Judge, Jhang, when
respondent No. 1, in order to defeat the petitioner’s
application, removed the minor from Jhang where she
permanently resides, to Lahore. The petitioner, then
made another application before the learned Guardian
Judge, Lahore for the custody of his minor son which is
still pending adjudication. Respondent No. 1, having
removed the minor from the constructive custody of the
petitioner, has lost right of “HAZANAT”. The
petitioner as such is not under legal obligation to pay
the maintenance allowance through his divorced
 mother. Both the learned Courts below, while making
the judgments and decrees have lost sight of this legal
aspect of the matter rendering the judgments illegal.

vi) That both the impugned judgments suffer from non-

reading of material evidence of record. The petitioner’s
documentary evidence Ex D1 to Ex D7 and Mark D &
E were material for ascertaining the financial position
of the petitioner. Both the learned Courts below have
failed to consider this material evidence and illegally
and arbitrarily proceeded to decide the important
question of quantum of maintenance without first
ascertaining the financial position and annual income of
the petitioner. This non-reading of material evidence
has rendered the judgments illegal and without lawful
authority. 1994 MLD 574 it was held: “Determination
of rate of maintenance payable by father to his son
without determining monthly income of father and
without taking into consideration evidence on record is
illegal and liable to be set aside”.

vii) In PLD 1958 West Pakistan Lah. 596 held:

“Muhammadan Law—past maintenance cannot be
claimed from father unless previously fixed by the
Court”
In 1991 CLC 766 it was held: “Muslim family law
ordinance sec. 9—Past maintenance cannot be granted
to minor but application of father for custody of minor
being pending before Guardian Judge, future
maintenance till decision of application could be
granted to minor.”

viii) That Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan advocate counsel for the
petitioner/defendant in the maintenance suit and appeal
had referred as many as 19 authorities and provisions of
law and handed over to the learned judges Photostat
copies of these authorities and legal references with a
typed index to facilitate their perusal. But the learned
judges had failed to consider, refer or discuss these
authorities in their judgments. Had the learned judges
perused these authorities, the judgments would have
been different. Copy of the typed index of authorities
referred to is attached with this petition.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that

the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this
writ petition and to set aside both the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by the respondents
No. 3 & 4 respectively and to dismiss the
plaintiff’s suit for maintenance with costs.

Any other relief, which in the wisdom of

this Hon’ble Court is adequate, may be awarded.

Petitioner,

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. _____________/2000

Muhammad Asad Vs. Mst. Humera Naz etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURE.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That the original Nikah Nama was sent to Mst.
Humera Naz which is with her, the certified copy of the same
Annexure “A” is not available with the petitioner. However,
uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed
with the petition, which is true copy of original document.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
Nikah Nama.
An affidavit is attached.

PETITIONER

Dated: _________ (Muhammad Asad)

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. _____________/2000

Muhammad Asad Vs. Mst. Humera Naz etc.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. _____________/2000

Muhammad Asad Vs. Mst. Humera Naz etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURE.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That the original Nikah Nama was sent to Mst.
Humera Naz which is with her, the certified copy of the same
Annexure “A” is not available with the petitioner. However,
uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed
with the petition, which is true copy of original document.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
Nikah Nama.
An affidavit is attached.

PETITIONER

Dated: _________ (Muhammad Asad)

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. _____________/2000

Muhammad Asad Vs. Mst. Humera Naz etc.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Asad S/o Maher Allah Bakhsh, caste Siyal
Bharwana, R/o Mauza Satiana, Tehsil & District Jhang.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq S/o Ahmad Ali, caste Sheikh, R/o

Plot No. 221 Timber Market Multan.
VERSUS
1. Haji Muhammad S/o Ghulam Sarwar, caste Jat Somra, R/o
Plot No. 221 Timber Market Multan.
2. Ghulam Muhammad S/o Ghulam Sarwar, caste Jat Somra, R/o
Plot No. 221 Timber Market Multan.
3. Muhammad Iqbal S/o Ameer Bakhsh, caste Jat Somra, R/o
Plot No. 247 Timber Market Multan.
4. Abdul Malik both sons of Ghulam Muhammad
5. Muhammad Nasir Minors caste Jat Somra, resident of Plot
No. 221 accompanied by Abdul Khaliq real brother.
6. Ghulam Sarwar S/o Fazal Ilahi, caste Rajput, R/o Plot No.
145 New Timber Market Multan.

Application u/s 151 C.P.C. seeking

direction for simultaneous hearing
of the following four cases.

1. Sh. Muhammad Ashiq Vs. Ghulam Muhammad & others.

Suit for specific performance of agreement
to sell plot No. 221 dated 20.6.2000.

2. Ghulam Sarwar Vs. Haji Muhammad

Suit for Specific performance to sell
plot No. 221 dated 20.6.2000

3. Haji Muhammad Vs. Sh. Muhammad Sadiq

Suit for recovery of rent of
Plot No. 221 dated 20.6.2000

4. Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Sh. Muhammad Sadiq

Ejectment application of
Plot No. 221 dated 13.5.2000

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That all the above mentioned four cases are pending in the
Court of Ch. Muhammad Azam Civil Judge, Multan and on at
evidence stage.
2. That previously these cases were pending in 2 different Courts
and on the application of the opposite party they were
transferred to one Court.
3. That it was agreed between the parties that firstly the two suits
for specific performance of agreement to sell be got decided
and their decision shall determine the fate of the remaining
two cases for recovery of rent and ejectment applications.
4. That now under the general instructions of High Court, the
ejectment application is being taken first by fixing a short
dated while the remaining 3 cases are adjourned for long date.
5. That all the four cases are inter-linked, parties are the same,
and the property No. 221 Timber Market is involved in all the
4 cases. The decision of one case shall effect the decision of
other cases and in order to avoid any conflict in decision, the
property demand that all the 4 cases should be heard
simultaneously.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that direction be
issued to the learned Trial Court to hear all the 4 cases
simultaneously.
Humble Applicant

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
 IN THE COURT OF CH. MUHAMMAD AZAM CIVIL
JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER, MUTLAN.

In re:
Muhammad Iqbal and others. Vs. Sufi Sh. Muhammad Sadiq

Ejectment Application
Petition for dismissal of Ejectment
Application being not maintainable.

Resepectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above captioned ejectment application is pending
before this Hon’ble Court in which next date of hearing is
fixed as 3.6.2000.
2. That in the written statement, a plea was raised by the
respondent “that ejectment application is not maintainable in
law as such is liable to be dismissed”.
3. That on such plea, the following issue No. 2 was framed.
“Whether the ejectment application is not maintainable”
4. That the premises in question is situated in an
Industrial/Factory Area of Timber Market Multan wherein
Timber Goods are manufactured for sale through a process of
Saw Mills.
5. That in the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the definitions of
terms “Building”, “Land” & “Premises” do not include Saw
Mills and as such the provisions of Rent Restriction
Ordinance are not applicable and learned Rent Controller has
no jurisdiction in this matter and as such ejectment application
is not maintainable.
6. That the question as to whether the provisions of the Rent
Restriction Ordinance are applicable or not to the present
ejectment application is a question of jurisdiction which can
be raised at any stage even at an appellate stage.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that
ejectment application being not maintainable, the same
be dismissed with cost.
Humble Petitioner/Respondent

(Sufi Muhammad Sadiq)

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 2216.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re:
Muhammad Iqbal and others. Vs. Sufi Sh. Muhammad Sadiq

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq S/o Ahmad Ali, caste
Sheikh, aged 70 years, a trader by occupation, R/o
Timber Market Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
above application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day of June
2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT