2001 PLP 224 (CLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 5 & 14‑‑‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.18‑‑‑ Pecuniary limits‑‑‑Civil Judge, notified as Family Court ‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑ Determination of forum of appeal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Matrimonial disputes exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of Family Courts created under special statute‑‑ Provisions of special statute prevail against all other laws‑‑‑Pecuniary limits of Civil Judge notified as Family Court are totally irrelevant‑‑‑Amount decreed by Family Court has no place in determining forum of appeal as provision of S.18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 is not applicable. Rai Muhammad Tufail Khan Kharal for Petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of learned Judge Family Court, dated 29‑5‑2000 whereby he decreed the suit for recovery of dowry articles of Mst. Qamar Munir respondent No. l against him.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. l filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the petitioner, Rai Naeem Shahadat alleging that they were married in March, 1991 .and at the time of her Rukhsati she was given huge articles of dowry by her parents and other relatives. The detail of the articles she has mentioned in the list appended with the plaint but subsequently relations between the spouses became strained and she was divorced, her husband refused to return dowry whereupon she was forced to institute the suit.

3. The petitioner contested the suit through written legal objections and also refuting the contents of the plaint. He asserted that plaintiff was not given the articles of dowry mentioned in the list Exh.P.L claim is violative of under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 which restricts the grant of dowry upto Rs.5,000 only. On divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the articles of dowry or, in alternative Rs.7,00,000 from the defendant on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP (2) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit? OPR (3) Whether the plaintiff's articles of dowry's list, dated 8‑3‑1991 is false and frivolous? OPR (4) Whether the plaintiff's suit is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed? OPR (5) Relief‑

4. Learned Judge Family Court after recording evidence of parties and hearing the arguments of their counsel decreed the suit through impugned judgment Petitioner instead of filing appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 before appellate Court instituted present Constitutional petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner denied the signatures on list Exh.P.1. Trial Court erroneously relied upon the aforesaid list and decreed the suit. Respondent No. l did not belong to a rich family which could afford to give her dowry worth Rs.7,00,

000. Trial Court misread the evidence on record in decreeing the suit in favour of respondent No. 1.

7. Heard. Record perused. The impugned judgment does not fall within the prohibition contained in subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred as Act). The appeal is, therefore, maintainable under section 14 of Act against the impugned judgment. Petitioner has not explained the reason for not availing adequate and efficacious remedy of appeal provided under the law. All final judgments passed by Family Court in relation to disputes referred in Schedule are appealable under section 14 of Act except three categories of cases mentioned in. clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2), namely, for dissolution of marriage except in case for dissolution for reasons specified in clause (d) of item VIII of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, for dower not exceeding Rs.15,000 and for maintenance of Rs.500 or less per month. Petitioner has not given any reason why he has not availed the remedy of appeal. In the case of Mst. Rushda Zareen v. Muhammad Saleh (PLD 1976 Lahore 1327) the judgment of Family Court was found appealable but the appeal having not been filed the writ petition was dismissed holding that petitioner has another remedy open through appeal under section 14 and the said remedy being undoubtedly efficacious and adequate there is no justification for entertaining the controversy in writ jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel when confronted with this legal objection about maintainability of writ petition argued that value of dowry was worth Rs.7 lacs, therefore, appeal is not competent before District Judge. This argument has not force. Irrespective of any amount of decree involved in a family suit except the three categories mentioned above appeal is competent before the District Judge. Provisions of Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), and Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962) are not applicable to a suit filed under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Both these Acts which determine value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and forum of appeal are inapplicable to these proceedings and so was held by this Court in Shabbir Hussain v. Mst. Ansar Fatima and 3 others (PLD 1985 Lahore 491). Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Naghat Fayyaz (1985 CLC 2609). Matrimonial disputes exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of Family Courts including a suit for recovery of dowry created under special Statute. Such provisions would obviously prevail against all other laws. Civil Judge notified as Family Court, his pecuniary limits would be totally irrelevant. The amount decreed by such Family Court would have no place in determining forum of appeal as section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 is not applicable. The aforesaid judgments read with section 14 of the Act leave no manner of doubt that impugned judgment is appealable before the District Judge. Petitioner has not availed the adequate and efficacious remedy provided under the law, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may, if so advised, avail the remedy of appeal in accordance with law. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑42/L Order accordingly