2016 PLP 2 (CLCN)
Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2 (CLCN) (Dr. AAQIB HABIB MALIK through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Khalid Zaman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of
Scope
Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower and dowry articles
Application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts of dowry articles
Wife produced purchase receipts of dowry articles during her evidence
Husband/petitioner moved an application for summoning of witnesses/scribe of receipts produced in evidence
Family Court observed that objections, relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipts of dowry articles would be decided at appropriate stage and defendant had not mentioned name, address and sufficient particulars of any witness to whom he wanted to summon through process of court; however, defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any evidence/witness during his own evidence subject to all just and legal exceptions
Right of defendant-husband to produce evidence had not been closed by the Trial Court
Defendant-husband would be at liberty to produce any witness at his turn while recording evidence
Interim order passed by the Family Court should not be brought to superior courts to obtain fragmentary decisions which would harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law
Husband had not been prejudiced by the impugned order
Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in routine but only to foster the ends of justice
Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in limine
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised in routine but only to foster the ends of justice.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.
The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.09.2014 passed by respondent No.1/Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi, whereby application of petitioner for summoning of witnesses was dismissed.
2. The facts briefly are that respondent No.2 filed a suit for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance and dowry articles against the petitioner which was pending before Judge Family Court. In evidence, on behalf of respondent No.2, purchase receipts of dowry articles were produced. The present petitioner moved application before the learned trial court for summoning of witnesses / scribe of the receipts produced in evidence.
3. Heard. Perused.
4. Record shows that the learned trial court after hearing the arguments passed impugned order dated 29.09.2014. In Para No.5, it was observed that the "objections are yet to be decided and the relevancy, admissibility and evidentiary value of the receipts of dowry articles shall be determined at appropriate stage. Moreover, the petitioner/defendant has not mentioned name, address and sufficient particulars of any witness to whom he wanted to summon through process of the court. However, the petitioner/defendant is at liberty to produce any evidence/witness during his own evidence subject to all just and legal exceptions".
5. Above observations of the learned trial court reveal that the right of petitioner to produce evidence has not been closed by the trial court. He will be at liberty to produce any witness at his turn while recording evidence. Only an interim order has been passed by the learned Judge Family Court. Law is well settled that orders passed at interlocutory stages should not be brought to superior courts to obtain fragmentary decisions as it tends to harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law. Reference may be made to the case "Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. The State" (1999 SCMR 1447) and "Mushtaq Hussain Bukhari v. The State" (1991 SCMR 2136) to fortify the above view. The case of petitioner has not been prejudiced by the impugned order. The constitutional jurisdiction is not to be exercised in routine, but only to foster the ends of justice.
6. The petition in hand is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine. ZC/A-200/L Petition dismissed.