1982 PLP 2026 (CLC)

Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and others P L D 1981 S C 522 ref. B.S. Akhunzada for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1981. FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The facts hereinafter stated from the back, ground of this Constitutional Petition filed by Wahid Gul against Mst. Amtri and one other.

2. Mst. Amtri, respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit for (i) the dissolution of marriage, (ii) the recovery of dower amount, and (iii) the recovery of maintenance amount against her husband Wahid Gul, petitioner herein. in the Family Court at Peshawar. Wahid Gul, petitioner herein, in turn filed in the same Court a suit for restitution of con jugal rights against Mst. Amtri, his wife. Both the suits were taken up together by the trial Court and on conclusion of trial, a decree for the dissolution of marriage was passed in favour of Mst. Amtri against Wahid Gul on the ground of 'Khula' The suit of Mst. Amtri relating to her claim for dower and maintenance was, therefore, dismissed by the trial Court, as was dismissed the suit of Wabid Gul for the restitution of conjugal rights.

3. Not satisfied with the decree for the dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court against him, Wabid Gul petitioner has come to this Court with this Constitutional . Petition alleging that the impugn ed order is wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.

4. As already, stated, the Family Court has passed a decree for the dissolution of marriage in favour of respondent No. 1 on the ground of `Khula' All other claims put forth by her in the suit have been refused to her by the Family Court. A decree for dissolution marriage passed by a Family Court on ground of 'Khula' is not appeal able, as specified to subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Family" Courts Act, 1964, which would mean that such a decree is final. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a decree for the dissolution of marriage on ground of `Khula' could only be passed by the Court when the husband had agreed to it is without substance. If this argument is accepted, then, in practice, the ground otherwise .recognised by Muslim Law, would be reduced to redundancy.

5. The order passed by the Family Court in this case is final. The mere fact that the decision of the Family Court may be wrong, on the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence may come to a different conclusion, does not make the decision of the Family Court without jurisdiction.

6. The scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in cases in which the final decisions given by the Courts or Tribunals of final jurisdiction are challenged recently came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and others (PLD1981SC522). It has been held, by the Supreme Court that the High Court in writ jurisdiction would only interfere when the Court or Tribunal "acted without jurisdiction or in violation of relevant Statute or law as laid down by Superior Courts". In the case in hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the impugned judgment of the Family Court was either without jurisdiction, or was in violation of the provisions of the relevant Act or the law laid down by the superior Courts.

7. Finding no merit in the Writ Petition, we dismiss it in limine. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.