SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE arts — 2025 PLD 332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE arts. 2(9) & 128---Family Courts act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor---Paternity of minor (plaintiff), denial/challenging of---Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNa) test of the minor, conducting of---Scope---Subsistence of valid marriage---"Conclusive proof"---application of defendant (ex-husband) for DNa examination of minor plaintiff was dismissed concurrently---Whether the petitioner/defendant can be allowed to get conducted DNa test of the minor plaintiff and produce the said report as evidence in order to challenge the paternity of minor plaintiff?---Held, it is matter of record that the petitioner contracted marriage with the respondent (plaintiff lady), however, he divorced her after about seven months of their marriage---after the divorce, minor/plaintiff was born after almost 06½ months of the dissolution of marriage---Petitioner has not denied the marriage with respondent (plaintiff lady), however, he denied the paternity of minor---Petitioner, being defendant, moved the application whereby he prayed for conducting Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNa) test---as per art. 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the Order 1984'), a child born to a woman during the subsistence of valid marriage or within two years after its dissolution is conclusive proof of his legitimacy, provided that the woman remains unmarried after the divorce---Said fact was regarded as a "conclusive proof" and no evidence could be admitted to refute the same as art. 2(9) of the Order, 1984, provides that "when one fact is declared by this Order to be conclusive proof of another, the Court, on proof of the one fact, regards the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it"---Stipulation in art. 128 of the Order, 1984, is that the birth of a child within the period specified in said article is conclusive proof that he is a legitimate child---Once the relevant facts as to commencement of dissolution of marriage and the date of birth of a child within a period envisioned in art. 128 are proved and the date of birth is within the period specified in art. 128(1), then the Court cannot allow evidence to be given for disproving the legitimacy of a child born within the said period---Thus, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner/ defendant(ex-husband)---Constitutional petition filed by defendant (ex-husband), being merit-less, was dismissed.

SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE arts — 2025 PLD 332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD