2025 PLP 2680 (YLR)

Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J.

Foreword: The captioned writ petition has been preferred under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, through which petitioner has called into question the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Judge Family Court Mirpur and also sought direction to the trial Court to dismiss the suit on the point that the suit is barred by jurisdiction. STANCE OF THE PETITIONER: The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds already taken in the petition by vehemently argued that the learned Family Judge passed the impugned order in a telegraphic manner without legal backing, as it is evident from the statement of the plaintiff/respondent herein that she is currently residing in Dadyal but despite of such factum, the learned Family Judge dropped the application of the petitioner for dismissing the suit though the same has been filed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set at naught but during the course of arguments, when the learned counsel for petitioner asked how the writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order, he failed to satisfy the Court on the said point, rather prayed for admission of the writ petition for regular hearing. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the contents of the petition and other documents appended with the petition with utmost care and caution. COURT OBSERVATIONS AND RELEVANT LAW: It is better to apt that this Court while exercising powers conferred under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, can look only into the matters in which violation of any law, rule, statues, infringement of any fundamental right is visible or in case of Coram non Judice order, whereas, in the matter in hand, during the trial the learned Court below has dishonored the application of the petitioner filed for the purpose of dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction through the impugned order. Time and again, it has been observed, in light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments regarding non-maintainability of writ petition on such orders who attained finality passed by the Judge Family Court while exercising its powers under the umbrella of Family Courts Act, but inspite of that, in my regular observation that writ petitions are filed in a routine manner against such orders which in at one end procrastinate the family matters that is against the very purpose of Family Courts Act, whereas, on the other end tantamount to overburden the Courts. Since there is no remedy of appeal available against the interlocutory orders under the Family Court Act, therefore, legal practitioners often filed writ petition as a valid recourse. However this approach primarily stems from a lack of proper understanding of the relevant legal framework. As in the instant matter, petitioner herein filed an application during the trial before the Judge Family Court, praying therein that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case, therefore, the family suit be dismissed and the learned Judge after hearing the parties rejected the application of the petitioner herein, vide its impugned order dated 24.04.2025, resultantly, the learned counsel for the petitioner by himself assuming that the said order is interlocutory in nature and appeal does not lie against the said order, filed the instant writ petition. In view of such eventuality, it deem apt to observe herein, that every order passed by the Family Court during the pendency of a suit cannot be treated as interlocutory, unless the nature of such order reflects so. To test whether an order passed on any application by the Family Court be treated interlocutory or not then it must be considered to find out what possible orders could be passed by the Judge Family Court on such application. If the nature of any order appears to be final then it may not be treated interlocutory, as in the matter in hand; the Judge Family Court dismissed the application, that the Family Court has got the jurisdictional competence to hear the case, thus finally decided the question of jurisdiction which cannot be raised during subsequent proceedings before the Court except in appeal, meaning thereby that if any point finally decided during the pendency of the suit which goes into the root of the case, then such orders cannot be treated as interlocutory, thus, in my considered opinion the such nature of orders who obtained finality, notwithstanding to the pendency or final disposal of the case, appeal against such orders would be maintainable. My this view finds support from the cases reported as [1996 CLC 94], [2018 SCR 908] and unreported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 270/2018 titled "Uzma Waheed v. Saqib Munir and another". Thus, in view of the aforementioned scenario, the instant writ petition is not maintainable under law. DISPOSAL: The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the instant writ petition is hereby dropped in limine. 42/AJK(H.C) Petition dismissed.