2012 PLP 1900 (CLC)
Mian SHOAIB AKRAM — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1900 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian SHOAIB AKRAM — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Interpretation of Statutes, (d) Administration of justice, (b) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1900 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Interpretation of Statutes, (d) Administration of justice, (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1900 (CLC)?
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 PLP 1900 (CLC) (Mian SHOAIB AKRAM — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Saeed Sabir, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14(3)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Scope
Constitutional petition did not lie against an interim order as under section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964; no appeal or revision was competent against an interim order of the Family Court.
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
When a statute did not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order, then the same could not be challenged by the way of a Constitutional petition as allowing such an order to be impugned by way of a Constitutional petition would amount to negating the provisions of the statute which did not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order.
Court would not act in a manner by which the object of a statute was defeated and by which the same was rendered nugatory.
When no appeal was provided against an interlocutory order, then the same could only be challenged in the appeal to be filed against the final court judgment.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID WAHEED, J.
Petitioner, Mian Shoaib Akram, through this constitutional petition has called in question the validity and legality of an interim order dated 21-3-2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore, whereby interim maintenance allowance of the minor respondents Nos.3 to 5 has been fixed in a suit instituted by respondent No.2 for very maintenance, dowry articles and dissolution of marriage.
2. Without touching merit of the case it is suffice to say that a constitutional petition does not lie against an interim order as under section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 no appeal or revision is competent against an interim order passed by a Family Court. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order then the same cannot be challenged by way of a constitutional petition as allowing such an order to be impugned by way of a constitutional petition would amount to negating the provisions of the statute which does not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order. According to the principles of interpretation of statute the Court would not act in a manner by which the object of a statute is defeated and the same is rendered nugatory. In the case of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi v. Province of Sindh and another reported in 1996 SCMR 1165, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order the same cannot also be challenged by way of a constitutional petition as constitutional petition would amount to defeating the object of the statute. A similar pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Iftikhar Muhammad v. Javed Muhammad and 3 others reported in 1998 SCMR
328. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when no appeal was provided against an interlocutory order then the same could only be challenged in the appeal to be filed against the final order/judgment.
3. In view of above, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. KMZ/S-63/L Constitution petition dismissed.