P L D 1968 Karachi 650 (PLP)
| Citation | P L D 1968 Karachi 650 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Qadeer‑ud-din Ahmed, J |
| Parties |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1968 Karachi 650 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1968 Karachi 650 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Qadeer‑ud-din Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1968 Karachi 650 (PLP) (). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 25‑Expression "a Family Court shall be deemed to be a District Court for the purposes of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890"‑Does not mean that District Court is Family Court- Provision purposes to mean that Family Courts have to follow procedure laid down in Guardians and Wards Act like a District Court‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 10. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Ordinance (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 3 & S read with West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 24(2‑A) ‑ Jurisdiction ‑ Family Courts not ordinary Courts ‑ Pecuniary jurisdiction of such Courts‑Not limited to Rs. 2.5,
000. M. M. Mahmoodi for Applicants. Mansoor Ahmad for Mrs. M. Nigar Hussain.
Judgment & Decree
Exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on them by section 5 which runs as under: "
5. Subject to the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, the Family Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon matters specified in the Schedule," In order to give effect to the Act, rules have been framed, and rules 3 and 7 are relevant for the present purpose.
5. Rule 3 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 is as follows : "Subject to the provisions of rule 7, the Courts of the District Judge, the Additional District Judge, the Senior Civil Judge, the Civil Judge First Class and the Civil Judge First Class (Additional) shall be the Family Courts established for the purposes of the Act."
6. Rule 7 is as follows : "7(1) Suits relating to custody of children and guardian ship shall be instituted, heard and tried by the Court of the District Judge, but such Court may transfer any suit to the Court of the Additional District Judge, the Senior Civil Judge, the Civil Judge, First Class or the Civil Judge First Class (Additional), having jurisdiction as provided in rule 6, and thereupon the Court to which such suit is so transferred shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the same. (2) Suits triable under this Act other than those relating to the custody of children and guardianship shall be instituted, heard and tried in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, the Civil Judge First Class or the Civil Judge First Class (Additional), having jurisdiction as provided in rule fry , and where in any district there is no such Court, such suits shall be instituted in and heard and tried by the Court of the District Judge. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‑rules (1) and (2) the Court of District Judge may‑ (a) recall any suit made over by it for trial under sub rule (1) to an Additional District Judge, Senior Civil Judge, Civil Judge First Class or Civil Judge First Class (Additional) and either try such suit himself or refer it for trial to any other Court within the District: (b) send for the record and proceedings of any suit pending for trial in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Senior Civil Judge, Civil Judge First Class or the Civil Judge First Class (Additional) and hear and try the suit itself or refer it for trial to any other Court within the District, and thereupon the District Judge or the Court to which such suit is so transferred, as the case may be, shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the suit" It is obvious that the rules contain necessary provisions but the Family Courts are those which are established under sections 3 and 5 of the Act.
7. Mr. Mahmoodi's contention that the pecuniary juris diction of District Courts is limited to Rs. 25,000 is in disregard of the legal position that the Courts mentioned in rule 3 are Family Courts which have been constituted under section 3 of the Act, and that they are not the ordinary Courts whose jurisdiction is limited by the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 to Rs. 25,000.
8. The petitions should be returned to be presented to the District Judge, who may decide them, or transfer them in terms of rule 7 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. S.A.H Petitions returned.