1999 PLP 2651 (YLR)

"(1) The judgment and decree, dated 24‑10‑1992 passed and proceedings taken by respondent No. l in Suit No.811 of 1992 is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. (2) To declare that the respondent No.2 is still legally wedded wife of the petitioner. (3) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." The facts as stated in the petition are that about 25 years back petitioner was married with respondent No.2 and out of this wedlock two daughters were born who are married and living with their husbands. The dispute arose between the parties with the result respondent No.2 filed Suit No.811 of 1992 for dissolution of marriage which was decreed ex parte on 24‑10‑1992 by the learned XIth Civil and Family Judge (East), Karachi. It is further averred that petitioner was ignorant of the ex parte decree whereby his marriage was dissolved with respondent No.2. On 2‑1‑1998 petitioner was informed by his daughter that respondent No.2 after obtaining decree from the Family Court had solemnised second marriage. On knowing this he applied for the certified true copies of the relevant documents and on 23‑2‑1998 he received the documents from the Family Court and filed the present petition seeking the relief mentioned hereinabove. Pre admission notice was issued to respondent No.2 by this Court and in pursuance to the said notice the learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed certain documents with his statement wherein the allegations made in the petition have been rebutted. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti learned counsel for the petitioner at length and so also Mr. Ghulam Ghous learned counsel for the respondent No.2. I have also perused the material placed by the parties on record. The perusal of record shows that the Family Suit No.811 of 1992 for dissolution of marriage was filed by respondent No.2 on 13‑9‑1992. before the learned Civil and Family Judge No.XIth, Karachi and it was decreed ex parte on 24‑10‑1992. On 6‑12‑1992 petitioner through his Advocate Mr. S.M. Sayedain Zaidi whose copy of power (Vakalatnama) has been placed on record, filed application before the concerned Court for setting aside the said ex parte decree. The said application was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. On 21‑12‑1993 the petitioner filed another application under section 476, Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, supported by his affidavit for penal action against the respondent No.2. On 9‑12‑1993 the advocate for the petitioner made a statement before the Court that petitioner was not interested in proceeding with the matter, therefore, he did not press the applications stated hereinabove, and withdrew the same. Consequently applications were dismissed as not pressed by order, dated 9‑12‑1993. On 16‑2‑1998 petitioner filed application which is dated 13‑2‑1998 supported by his affidavit through his counsel Mr. Farooq H. Abbasi before the Trial Court for grant of certified copies of documents. The power (Vakalatnama) of Mr. Abbasi shows that he was engaged on 12‑2‑1998. The writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is a discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The main object of it is to protect the rights of the citizens where no other alternate adequate or efficacious remedy is provided by law to rectify the wrong sought to be redressed. The prime object is to see that no one transgresses the limits of law. However, this jurisdiction is to be exercised very sparingly with utmost care and caution and not as a matter or course. It is also fundamental requirement that anyone who seeks relief by way of writ must come with clean hands. In the present case the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction with unclean hands by suppressing the true facts. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage was obtained by the respondent fraudulently in the year 1992 and he only came to know of it in February, 1998. This very averment is false and if it is a white lie on the face of it. The documents placed on record as mentioned hereinabove show that petitioner came to know about the decree within 1‑1/2 (one and half) months of its passing and he moved the Trial Court through an advocate for setting it aside and he also made an application for penal action against the respondent No.2. He however did not press any of the above applications. The result is that the decree holds filed and it has attained finality. The petitioner has, thus, by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts which were already in his knowledge invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. He is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this petition. Consequently the petition stands dismissed alongwith listed application. C.M.A./M.A.K./M‑455/K Petition dismissed.