1985 PLP 2609 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Appellants Versus NIGHAT FAYYAZ — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2609 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | C.A. Rahman and Akhtar Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Appellants Versus NIGHAT FAYYAZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2609 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2609 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: C.A. Rahman and Akhtar Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2609 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Appellants Versus NIGHAT FAYYAZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zafar Chaudhry for Appellants.
- Wajihullah Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14--West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18--Recovery of dower--Suit for--Appeal against--Forum of--Family Court decreeing suit for recovery of dower amount exceeding Rs.50,000 admittedly was presided over by Civil Judge--Whatever amount of dower might be, decree, held, would be appealable only before District Judge and not before High Court.
S. 14--West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (11 of 1962), S. 18--Matrimonial disputes--Jurisdiction of Family Courts--For matrimonial disputes including dower, jurisdiction exclusively lay with Family Courts created under special statute--Provisions of which would obviously prevail against all other laws--Once a Civil Judge was notified as Family Court his pecuniary limits would be totally irrelevant--Amount decreed by such Family Court, held, would have no place in determining forum of appeal--Section 18 or-Ordinance 1962 being not applicable, appeal returned by High Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTAR HASSAN, J.--This K.F.A. arises from a decree dated 4-10-1983 of the learned Judge Family Court, Sialkot whereby he allowed the respondent-widow's claim of dower for Rs.60,000 against the estate of her deceased husband. It has been filed in the High Court presumably relying upon section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, as the value of the suit exceeded Rs.50,000.
2. An objection has been taken that since the Family Court was presided over by a Civil Judge, the forum of appeal was the District Judge, rather than the High Court. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, was cited in this behalf laying considerable stress on its nonobstante clause by which applicability of all other laws for the time being in force to appeals arising from the decisions of Family Courts was excluded.
3. There was considerable force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-lady. Section 14 ibid is more than clear in overriding all other laws on the point. Admittedly the Family Court was presided over by a Civil Judge and whatever the amount of dower, the decree shall be appealable only before the District Judge. The contention that section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, applied to this case was based upon a sheer misconception. All other laws including the said Ordinance were overridden by section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1964, and hence there was no occasion whatsoever to treat it a decree of an ordinary civil Court. For material disputes including dower, the jurisdiction exclusively lay with Family Courts created under the special statute whose provisions will obviously prevail against all other laws. According to section 14 referred to above, the amount of dower has no relevance as it could be allowed by a Presiding Officer who may otherwise be a Civil Judge Illrd Class, but once he is notified as a Family Court his pecuniary limits on the civil side will be totally irrelevant and likewise the amount decreed will have no place indetermining the forum of appeal. Conversely speaking, what would determine the forum of appeal would be the status of the Officer presiding over the Family Court, namely, either the District Judge or as the case may be a Civil Judge. In the case of the latter, however, the appeal will lie before the District Court without keeping in mind the quantum of dower amount. We do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. It be returned. A.A.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal returned.