2000 PLP 2840 (YLR)

Muhammad Akram petitioner in this case is the husband of Mst. Rukhsana Kousar, respondent. They were married on 19‑4‑1996. It is said that although the spouses had been leading a happy matrimonial life but Mst. Rukhsana Kousar at the instigation of some of her relations left the home of the petitioner without any genuine excuse.

2. That the petitioner had filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights on 2‑6‑1998. That while the suit was pending, Mst. Rukhsana Kausar filed a suit for Dissolution of Marriage against him on 1‑9‑1999 and also filed another suit for maintenance on 1‑9‑1998.

3. That all these suits were consolidated by the Judge Family Court, who has been arrayed as respondent No.l. Evidence of Mst. Rukhsana was recorded in all these cases based on common issues. Next was the turn for recording of the evidence of the petitioner, who was not able to produce his evidence and the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner vide his order, dated 9‑10‑1999 and adjourned the case to 1‑11‑1999 for post‑trial/reconciliation proceedings and arguments. This interim order of 9‑10‑1999 is the subject‑matter of this writ petition.

4. Alongwith the petition copies of order‑sheet is attached and this Court had the advantage to go through it.

5. From the order, dated 18‑2‑1999 it appears that the reconciliation proceedings having failed the case was fixed for 6‑4‑1999 when the evidence of Mst. Rukhsana was recorded and the case was fixed for, the evidence of the petitioner for 22‑5‑1999. The petitioner did not produce his evidence on 22‑5‑1999 and the case was adjourned for this purpose to 23‑6‑1999. On 23‑6‑1999 the evidence from the side of the petitioner was not available and an application was moved for adjournment. The application was granted but a last opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his evidence against a payment of cost of Rs.80. The case was re fixed for his evidence for 2‑9‑1999. On 2‑9‑1999 although the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court was not present but the Duty Judge looking after his affairs observed that the evidence of the petitioner was not available and for this purpose he fixed 9‑10‑1999. On 9‑10‑1999 the impugned order was passed closing his defence and fixing the case for post‑trial reconciliation and arguments on 1‑11‑1999.

6. While arguing his writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner's side has not been able to point out what illegality had been committed by the learned Judge Family Court in closing the evidence of the petitioner after having afforded him the few opportunities referred to above. After all family cases are meant to be decided as early as possible and the dragging of a case fixed for hearing and where a last opportunity had already been afforded, was not justifiable. Even otherwise, the arguments in this case are yet to be heard and the judgment and decree of the Family Court is still expected which gives the present petitioner the right to file appeal and to challenge the impugned orders there. But in a writ petition on such like matters, we have to see whether any patent illegality was attached to the order and as none has been pointed out and as the learned Judge Family Court was acting within his competence, this writ petition is devoid Of l any merits and is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑299/L Petition dismissed.