2000 PLP 1122 (CLC)

(b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Nifaz‑e‑Nizam‑e‑Shariah) Regulation (Il of 1994), S.7 & Sched. Item 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Dissolution of marriage‑‑ Appointment of mediator with consent of parties‑‑‑Respondent/wife filed a' suit for dissolution of marriage whereas the petitioner/husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights‑‑‑Trial Court with the consent of both the parties appointed a mediator‑‑‑Marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula' a and suit of petitioner/husband was dismissed‑‑‑Objection was raised by t petitioner/husband over the jurisdiction of the Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑ . Courts below had decided the case keeping in view the evidence on record and exercising their own discretion in the matter‑‑ ‑Petition being without merit was dismissed accordingly. Afridi Khan for Petitioner. Saleem Dil Khan for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1999. MALIK HAMID SAEED, J.‑‑‑ In this Constitution Petition, Amir Alam, petitioner, has questioned the legality and propriety of the judgment/order, dated 16‑9‑1996 of the learned Zilla Qazi and that of the Illaqa Qazi, dated 9‑4‑1994 with the prayer of declaring the same as against law, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Jehan Pari, respondent No.1 .brought a suit against Amir Alain Khan, her husband, for dissolution of marriage whereas Amir Alam Khan also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were contested by the parties by submitting written statements. The parties to the suit during proceedings of the matter showed their willingness before the learned trial Court for referring the matter to Mediator under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Nifaz‑e‑Nizam e‑Shariah) Regulation, 1994. After obtaining consent of both the parties over the appointment of mediator, the learned trial Court referred the matter to Maulana Kifayatullah, The parties presented themselves before the said Mediator, who in the light of the evidence adduced by both the parties, formed his opinion and delivered the same to the Court. The learned trial Court accepted the suit of the petitioner whereas dismissed the suit of respondent No.

1. The respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the judgment/ decree, dated 9‑4‑1994 of the Illaqa Qazi. The learned appellate Court accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1 and granted her decree for dissolution of marriage through ' Khula' . The petitioner has now impugned the judgment and decrees of the learned Courts below on the ground that the learned Illaqa Qazi and Zilla Qazi both Judges exercised their jurisdiction under Regulation‑11 of 1994 who are not competent to hear the suit and the appeal to the matter, as it was the jurisdiction of the family Court and the appellate forum provided therein under the West Pakistan Family Court Act. 1964.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to convince us that the adjudication of the matter by the Courts established A under Regulation‑II of 1994 has caused any gross miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The petitioner himself agreed to the appointment of Mediator in the case and never objected to his appointment. He also raised no objection over the report/opinion of the Mediator. He was also satisfied with the pronouncement of the judgment by the learned trial Court, but when the appellant Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court, then the petitioner has moved this Court with the plea that even the trial Court was not competent to hear the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner it unable to show that the learned appellate Court could not legally reverse the findings of the learned trial Court in appeal.

4. In view of the above facts, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any objection over the jurisdiction of the Courts, which have decided the case keeping in view the evidence or record and exercising their own discretion in the matter. The declaration sought by the petitioner in the writ petition‑ cannot, therefore, be granted to him and the writ petition is liable to dismissal for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the writ petition in dismissed alongwith C.M. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./31/P Petition dismissed.