2000 PLP 1482 (YLR)

Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent No. 1 filed suit for maintenance against the petitioner before the Judge Family Court who decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No. l vide judgment and decree dated 31‑1‑1995 and fixed monthly maintenance Rs.1,000 per month. Respondent No. 1 did not file any appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Petitioner filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance as the expenses of the respondent No. 1 exceeded as the respondent promoted to the higher class be efflux of time before the Judge Family Court. Petitioner filed reply of the application. The Judge Family Court without framing issues dismissed the application vide order dated 13‑11‑1997. Respondent being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge, Sargodha who entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha. The learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Judge Family Court to decide the application of the respondent No.1 after framing issues and given opportunities to the parties to produce their evidence and then to decide the case in accordance with law. Hence the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that judgment of the Judge Family Court is valid as the original judgment and decree was not agitated before the higher forum by respondent No.1. Therefore, same is liable to be dismissed on the well‑known principle of res-judicata. He further stated that the judgment of the Family Court is in accordance with Order 9, Rule 7 and section 11 of the C.P.C. He further stated that the First Appellate Court did not advert to the aforesaid provisions of law. Therefore, the judgment of the first Appellate Court is not valid and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Provisions of the C.P.C. is not applicable in stricto senso and the proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act. 1964 as the principle laid down by this Court in 1999 CLC 81 and observed that the purpose of enacting the special law regarding the family disputes ‑ is for the purpose of advancement of justice and. to avoid technicalities. It is also settled proposition of law that Judge Family Court is competent to regulate its own proceedings as the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 does not make provisions for every conceivable eventuality and unforeseen circumstances. Reliance can be placed on 1964 CLC

890. Therefore, general provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable on the well‑known principle that special provisions of the Family Courts Act excludes the general provisions as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zia‑ul‑Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC

49. Even otherwise the application of respondent No. 1 is maintainable as the law laid down by this Court in 1985 MLD

98. The Judge Family Court dismissed the application in a summary manner without framing the issues. Therefore, judgment of the first Appellate Court is in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑2/L Petition dismissed.