Skip to main content

Ground of Impotency should not be taken in a Khula Case

Even if the man is impotent and wife wants to take khula from him, this ground should not be taken in the case. The reason is that if the wife takes this ground as a ground of Khula, the Family Judge has powers to grant time to the husband to prove that he is not impotent.

A husband can be given time of 1 year to prove that he is not impotent. In such like circumstances the case lingers on for no just reasons. So it is always advisable not to take the ground of impotency in the case.

The best way to obtain khula decree in shortest possible times is to take the ground of hatred because the hateful union cannot continue as per the dictums laid down by the superior courts of Pakistan.

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan (Golra)
International Family Lawyer
+92-333-5339880

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Co-sharer

Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...

2013 S C M R 587

Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule --- Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/Prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings --- Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found --- High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal --- Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below --- Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006