1999 PLP 2653 (YLR)
Mst. SAFIA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2653 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAFIA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2653 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2653 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2653 (YLR) (Mst. SAFIA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Haji Abdur Raziq for Petitioner
- Hameedullah Bangesh for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.17‑‑‑ "Case decided "‑‑ Interlocutory order‑‑‑Not "case decided"‑‑ Interlocutory order whereby objection regarding appeal being time‑barred, was overruled, could not be said to be a 'case decided' within the meaning of S.115, C.P.C., which even otherwise stood excluded by virtue of S.17, West Pakistan Family Courts, Act, 1964‑‑‑Petition for revision being incompetent was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
2. Learned counsel for the parties heard and the material on the file perused:
3. Under section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate the following matters:‑‑‑ (i) Dissolution of marriage, (ii) Dower; (iii) Maintenance; (iv) Restitution of conjugal rights; (v) Custody of children; (vi) Guardianship; and (vii) Jactitation.
4. Thus, in view of the above legal provisions Family Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of custody of children and guardianship as specified in the Schedule to the Family Court Act, 1964. Section 14 of the Act (ibid) provides an appeal against decision or a 'decree' to the High Court where Family Court is presided by a District Judge/Additional District Judge and in any other case appeal would lie to the District Judge. In the respondents' appeal before the learned Additional District Judge two interlocutory orders have been impugned which is yet to be adjudicated upon by the said Court, therefore, I would refrain to pass any observation. The petitioner has assailed two interlocutory orders in this revision petition which cannot be said to be a case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which even otherwise stand excluded by virtue of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thus, there is no provision of revision before this Court in family matters.
5. In view of the above, this revision, petition being incompetent is dismissed with the direction to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law within a month. C.M.A./M.A.K./427/P Revision dismissed