2004 PLP 738 (YLR)

The Judge Family Court decreed the suit to the extent of the 8-Kanal landed property. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan, who dismissed the same, vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2002, hence the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Judge Family Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 read with Schedule at the time of filing tile suit by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit qua the recovery of dower. The Judge Family Court was granted powers to entertain suit for recovery of dower after addition of word "dower" after amendment in the Family Courts Act, 1964 by the competent body on 1-10-2002 therefore, both the Courts below have no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter. He further submits that respondent No.1 mala fide inserted 8-Kanal land in Nikahnama which is evident that the same was written subsequently. He further submits that both the Courts below have decided the case against the petitioner by misreading and non-reading of the record.

3. I have I given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that writ petition is, not maintainable against the concurrent findings on facts of the Courts below as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCMI 279; Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC

522. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the tribunals below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- M. Musaddaq's case PLD 1973 Lahore 600 and Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others PLD 1964 SC

260. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not taken a ground in the memorandum of appeal that the Judge Family Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter and also did not take the said ground in the memorandum of this petition, therefore, the learned counsel of the petitioner is estopped to raise the fresh ground at the time of hearing the constitutional petition as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: -- Ashfaq-ur-Rehman v. Ch. Muhammad Afzal PLD 1971 SC 766 and John E. Brownelee v. Vivan Macmillan AIR 1940 PC

219. Even otherwise the points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner have no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Liaqat Ali's case 1997 SCMR 1122. It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary in character. Keeping in view the special features of this case. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent filed suit for recovery of dower before the Judge Family Court on 4-11-1999 which was decreed by the Judge Family Court on 31-5-2000. The petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District Judge on 21-7-2000 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-2002 Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 came into force on 1-10-2002 wherein the word 'dowry' is added in amendment of section 14 of West Pakistan Act XXXV of 1964. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the respondents had filed a suit before the Judge Family Court on 4-11-1999 under the provisions of the Family Courts Act', 1964 the word `dowry' was included in the Schedule on 26-4-1997 which was added by the Family Courts (Amendment) Act VII of 1997. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner qua the jurisdiction of the Family Court has no force on the well known principle of past and closed transactions as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Miani Sahib case PLD 1973 SC-17. Even otherwise the Judge Family Court has jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of the addition of the word `dowry' in the Schedule as mentioned above. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./G-302/L Petition dismissed.