2012 ML D 1984 (PLP)
ASHRAF ALI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 ML D 1984 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHRAF ALI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 ML D 1984 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 ML D 1984 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 ML D 1984 (PLP) (ASHRAF ALI — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sarfraz Ali Diyal for Petitioner.
- Malik Zahid Hussain for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
S.7(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance
Petitioner's application for production of witnesses after the conclusion of evidence of both parties was dismissed by Family Court on the ground that list of such witnesses was not furnished by the petitioner with the petitioner's written statement-Validity-Proviso to S.7(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 contemplated that the parties may, with the permission-of the court, call any witness at any later stage, if the court considered such evidence expedient in the interest of justice
Family Court in the impugned order, did not appear to have given any such observation as to whether the evidence of such witnesses was expedient to the interest of justice or not
Mere fact that the list of witnesses was not furnished along with written statement, did not place any bar for the production of any witness at any belated stage
Family Court, in exercise of its powers could make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
Court was not to act upon the principle that every procedure was to be taken to be prohibited unless it was expressly provided for. but on the converse principle that every procedure was to be understood as permissible till it was shown to be prohibited by law
As a matter of general principle, prohibition could not be presumed
Order of Family Court was set aside with the direction that the petitioner's application for production of witnesses be deemed to be accepted
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL'WAHEED KHAN, J.
Brief facts of the case are that in a suit for maintenance allowance filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, after conclusion of the evidence of both the parties on 18-10-2011, the petitioner/defendant filed an application for producing Allah Rakhan and Ashraf Ali as his witnesses. The said application was contested and dismissed vide order dated 17-12-2011 as according to Judge Family Court, Okara, the written statement was not accompanied by a list of witnesses.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that statements of the aforementioned witnesses are necessary for the'just decision of the case as according to him, respondent No.2 received the dowry articles in their presence.
3. Conversely, counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner/defendant failed to file the list of witnesses along with the written statement, his request for producing some other .witnesses has rightly been declined.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
5. Proviso to section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 contemplates that the parties may, with the permission of the Courts, call any witness at any later stage, if the Court considers such evidence expedient in the interest of justice but the Family Court does not appear to have given any observation that the evidence of the aforementioned persons is expedient or not. The mere fact that the list of witnesses was not furnished along with the written statement, does not place any bar for the production of any witness at any belated stage. In exercise of its powers, the Family Court can make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice. The Courts are not to act upon the principle that i every procedure is to be taken to be prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by law. As a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the impugned order of the Family Court is set aside and the result would be that application dated 18-10-2011 shall be deemed to be accepted. The Family Court shall allow the petitioner/defendant to produce witnesses, mentioned, in the application dated 18-10-2011 and then decide the suit at the earliest. KMZ/A-32/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.