Way To Folllw The Principal Of Talaq Procedure in Pakistan By Lawyer

HomeLifestyle

Way To Folllw The Principal Of Talaq Procedure in Pakistan By Lawyer

  Principal Of Talaq Procedure in Pakistan: Previous to Islamic Legislation, wives had no right to pursue talaq procedure in Pakistan on any gr

Best wedding anniversary gifts for wife
Benefits Of Online Shopping
How to Improve your Fitness and Metabolism

 

Principal Of Talaq Procedure in Pakistan:

Previous to Islamic Legislation, wives had no right to pursue talaq procedure in Pakistan on any ground whatsoever; in exceptional cases, the only power of divorce was expressly reserved in favor of wives by contract. For Talaq in Pakistan, U Need to Know the Procedure of Talaq in Pakistan & Talaq Procedure in Lahore Pakistan. Now Prepare the Talaq Form in Pakistan & get The Talaq Certificate in Pakistan 2022 By Divorce lawyer. Neither the Hebrews nor the pre-Islamic Arabs, as a general rule, recognized the right of talaq procedure in Pakistan for women. Holy Qur’an had allowed them that privilege. Basis and origin of the legality of Khula’ are Verse No. 229 of Surah Al-Baqarah; under the said verse, condition to be fulfilled for, due application of the principle of talaq procedure in Pakistan are apprehension of husband and the wife that they could not live within the limits of Allah.

 

Wife Separation:

The wife had sought separation from the husband, and it was the wife who was to pay the consideration. When a talaq procedure in Pakistan had been entered for dower, if the woman had been enjoyed and had obtained possession of it, the husband could reclaim it from her, and if she had not obtained possession of its liability for the whole dower would fall to the ground. Neither party claimed against the other for anything. Dissolving marriage based on Khula’ had directed the wife to return certain benefits. Family Court dissolving marriage based on Khula had required the wife to return certain benefit

 

Family Court:

its she had received at the time of marriage to my husband. Appellate Forums finding that decree for dissolution of marriage between parties had become effective from the day it was passed. That direction regarding the return of benefits was a Civil liability for which husband could have recourse to a Court of law. Appellate forum’s finding did not connote that the husband should file a separate suit for the recovery of those benefits.

 

Constitutional Petition:

Husband’s resort to Family Court for the execution of Court’s direction regarding the return of benefits being proper and lawful, Constitutional petition against the same was not sustainable. Petitioner to return golden ornaments weighing 20 tolas. Among other things on the ground of Such Khula’ petitioner to produce golden ornaments weighing 20 tolas. The same contention is that the decree for challenged. Talaq procedure in Pakistan could not be made dependent on the return of benefits.

 

Civil Liability:

The direction in this regard created a civil liability for which recourse to law is to be made. There can be no dispute that while obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage based on Khula, a wife is bound to return the benefits which she had derived on account of the marriage from the husband and the Family Court is calle0 upon to determine as to what benefits have been received the wife and also direct their return. However, the return of benefits is not a condition precedent to the dissolution. The amount which the wife is required to pay stands quantified.

 

Civil Court:

There is no reason why another suit before the Civil Court should be necessary to enforce the direction for its payment. Writ petition having no force is dismissed—dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that wife had given up dower amount. The record showed that while appearing as a witness, the wife had stated in the first instance that she had given up dower, then in the same breath, she had said that she would never give up her dower amount. Such a piece of evidence having not been considered by the Family Court would mean that Court did not consider material evidence available on record in its proper perspective.

 

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 0
DISQUS: 0