2013 PLP 625 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 625 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shujaat Ali Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 625 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 625 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shujaat Ali Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 625 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shafique Piya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.14(1)(b), 14(2) & 5, Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Decree for jactitation of marriage passed by Family Court
Constitutional petition filed directly against such decree
Constitutional petition would not be maintainable as alternate remedy of filing appeal in terms of S. 14(1)(b) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, would be available with the petitioner. Mst. Musarrat Sultana v. Bashir Ahmad and another PLD 1986 Lah. 189 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged judgment and decree dated 19-6-2012 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Khanpur, District Bahawalpur (respondent No.1).
2. Unnecessary details apart, respondent No.2 filed a suit for jactitation of marriage which was decreed by virtue of ex parte judgment and decree dated 19-6-2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court how this constitutional petition is directly maintainable rather he took the stance that decree for jactitation of marriage being non-appealable and non-revisable, no remedy is available with the petitioner except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I do not find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that as ex parte judgment and decree has been passed against the petitioner, he can challenge the same by filing an application for setting aside thereof or by way of filing an appeal.
5. Further, section 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, deals with the subject of appeals against the decision or decree passed by a family court, which, for facility of reference is reproduced herein below:-- "Appeal. (1) Notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for the time being in force, a decision given or decree passed by a Family Court shall be appealable (a) to the High Court, where the Family Court is presided over by a District Judge, an Additional District Judge or any person notified by Government to be of the rank and status of a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; and (b) to the District Court, in any other case." (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree by a Family Court-- (a) for dissolution of marriage, except in the case of dissolution for reasons specified in clause (d) of item (viii) of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. (b) for dower or dowry not exceeding rupees thirty thousand. (c) for maintenance of rupees one thousand or less per month." In the afore-quoted subsection (2), there is no mention of suit for jactitation of marriage and case of the petitioner falls under section 14(b) of the Act. Further, this Court in the case reported as Mst. Musarrat Sultana v. Bashir Ahmad and another (PLD 1986 Lahore 189) has inter alia held as under:-- "The remedy against the dismissal of the suit on the question of jactitation of marriage lay by way of an appeal to the District Judge which was adequate and quite efficacious, therefore, the writ petition challenging the finding of the learned Family Judge on jactitation of marriage is not maintainable." Since the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal, instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. MWA/M-358/L Petition dismissed.