2007 PLP 1550 (YLR)
ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT OKARA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1550 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT OKARA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1550 (YLR)?
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 2007 PLP 1550 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1550 (YLR) (ASHFAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT OKARA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Anwar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Sched. Ss.8 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower
Failure of defendant to file written statement
Closing of defendant's right to file written statement on his such failure
High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction would not interfere in interlocutory orders and to proceedings in a pending trial
If suit was decided against defendant and he wanted to file an appeal, then it would be open to him to assail impugned order in his appeal
Appellate jurisdiction being wider in scope than constitutional jurisdiction provided an adequate remedy to defendant
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The respondent-plaintiff Naseem Akhtar has filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower amount against the petitioner-defendant Ashfaq Ahmad, which is pending adjudication. The petitioner did not file his written statement, whereupon the learned Family Court, vide order dated 3-10-2006, closed his right to file a written statement. The petitioner, impugns this order. It is not for this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction to interfere in interlocutory orders and to micromanage proceedings in a pending trial. Needless to say, if the suit is decided against the petitioner and the petitioner chooses to file an appeal, it will be open to him to assail the order dated 3-10-2006 in his appeal. The appellate jurisdiction, being wider in scope than writ jurisdiction, in the circumstances, provides an adequate remedy to the petitioner-defendant.
2. In view of the above discussion, II this petition is dismissed. S.A.K./A-50/L Petition dismissed.