2004 PLP 1802 (MLD)

Through this writ petition, Abdul Latif petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders and decrees dated 22-5-2003 and 29-6-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge and Judge Family Court, Bahawalnagar respectively.

2. To be concise on the facts, Mst. Parveen, respondent No.1 had filed a suit of jactitation of marriage on 12-8-2000 in the Court of learned Family Court Judge, Bahawalnagar to the effect that Abdul Latif, defendant No.1 petitioner be restrained to claim her as his wife as he had divorced her on 12-12-1999. It was further stated that after the aforesaid 'Talaq', she had contracted second marriage with one Manzoor Ahmad on 5-6-2000 according to Muslim Law and that she was living in the house of Manzoor Ahmad, her husband, as his wife. The suit was contested by Abdul Latif defendant No. 1 . He submitted his written statement. Issues were framed. The parties produced evidence and the suit was ultimately decreed by the learned Judge Family Court on 29-6-2002. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 22-5-2003. Aggrieved from this judgment, the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments of the learned Courts below have been passed on the basis of a photo-copy of 'Talaq Nama', which was not even got exhibited into the evidence. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the impugned judgments be set aside in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mst. Parveen, respondent No.1 has replied to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner with the assertion that the Family Court is not a Court where Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 be made applicable. Therefore, the learned Judge Family Court has correctly considered the aforesaid photocopy of 'Talaq Nama'.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Before dilating upon the law and facts of the case it would be beneficial to note that the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised in such cases where injustice would ensue due to illegality, perversity and unlawfulness committed by delivering. Judgments or the circumstances of the case are of such nature that the interference should be made by this Court. In the present case, it has been admitted that Mst. Parveen has soleminized marriage with Manzoor Ahmad on 5-6-2000 and from that marital tie, one daughter has also born to respondent No.1. Mst. Perveen. So in these circumstances, reversal of judgment of the learned lower Courts upon mere technicalities would not serve any beneficial purpose to both the parties. It would give birth to injustice as the daughter born to respondent No.1 from Manzoor Ahmad would be given the name of begotten child without her fault.

7. It is correct that alleged 'Talaq Nama', photocopy of which has not been produced by both the learned counsel in this Court and also not been appended with the writ petition, upon which the learned Courts below have based their judgments yet there is evidence on the file which compels that the impugned decree shall not be set aside. The relations of the parties had become so strained and had reached up to such peak that Abdul Latif, petitioner had lodged F.I.R. No.45 of 2001 against respondent No.1. In that F.I.R., copy of which has been attached with this writ petition, the petitioner had admitted that after the issuance of certificate from the Union Council Mahar Wali Tehsil Bahawalnagar, Mst. Parveen had contracted second marriage with Manzoor Ahmad. P.W.1. Mst. Parveen Akhtar deposed in her statement that she had got. Registered F.I.R. Against the defendant-petitioner and his brother as they had given severe beating to her and that due to this the defendant had sent 'Talaq' to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is also admitted that the parties remained in separation from each other from 20-6-1999 to 5-6-2000. This period of seclusion and the strained relations itself is a proof that there was no relations of husband and wife between these two, when respondent No.1 contracted marriage with Manzoor Ahmad on 5-6-2000. It would be futile effort to upset the concurrent findings of fact delivered by both the learned Courts below. The relations betweenthe parties have reached to such an extent that the reversal in any case would not be propitious to any of the party. The petitioner is making pursuit of this writ petition merely to keep his flag of honour up and high, otherwise he knows the result and the consequences of the reversal of the decrees.

8. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I do not consider it afit case to interfere into the judgment of learned lower Appellate Court, therefore, I dismiss the writ petition without any order as to costs. H.B.T./A-225/L Petition dismissed.