Skip to main content

In how much time Khula can be granted?

It is one of the most frequently asked question which needs to be addressed properly. The answer to this question is that there is no certainty for the exact time period of Khula for many reasons. In order to understand the reason, let us divide Khula cases in two types:

1. Contested Cases
2. Uncontested Cases

1. Contested Cases are the ones in which both the parties represent themselves in the court. In such like cases, the case is filed by the wife and summons are served to the husband in due process of law. Now these cases further have two types:-

a. The ones that the husbands try to linger on
b. The ones in which the husbands try to get rid of

If a husband wishes to linger on a case, there are certain ways by which he and his lawyer can delay the process. Such like cases usually run more than 6 months. The speed of such like cases is dependent upon the performance of lawyers of both parties and the judge likewise.

If a husband likes to get rid of the Khula case, he can just appear in the court and give a statement in favor of wife. Such like cases gets decided in matter of weeks.

2. Uncontested cases are the ones in which the husband never turns up in the court by any means. Such cases are proceeded ex-parte. There are usually three notices served on different dates in such cases followed by a newspaper publishing. After that the case turns ex-parte and finally its decided after the ex-parte evidence and final arguments. Such like cases usually run 4-6 months depending upon the speed of judge and lawyer and circumstances of the case.

In Punjab the law has been amended in 2015 because of which such cases run faster and gets decided usually within 2-3 months

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

PLJ 2018 Lahore 868 [Multan Bench, Multan] Present :  Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed, J. MUHAMMAD AMIN--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR--Respondent F.A.O. No. 130 of 2016, heard on 5.10.2017. Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-- ----Ss. 19, 28 & 33--Seed Act, 1976, Ss. 22-B, 22-C, 22-E, 22-D & 23--Purchasing of hybird seed substandard quantity--Issuance of legal notice--Complaint before district consumer Court--Partly allowed--Suffering of Fiscal loss and mental agony--Question of--Whether purchased seed was hybird or substandard--Direction to--Respondent was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Center to obtain expert report/lab report of plants to corroborate his version--Laboratory tests and analysis of such experts are quite helpful   to   determine controversial   issue,   involved in such like cases--It is manifest that a detailed and effective procedure has b...

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