PLD 2025

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 847 (PLP)

KHALID PERVAIZ UL HAQ and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MINHA ASIF and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
2025-April-22
Honorable Judges
Naeem Akhter Afghan and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 2025 Supreme Court 847 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Naeem Akhter Afghan and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ
Parties KHALID PERVAIZ UL HAQ and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MINHA ASIF and another — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2025 Supreme Court 847 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2025 Supreme Court 847 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Naeem Akhter Afghan and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2025 Supreme Court 847 (PLP) (KHALID PERVAIZ UL HAQ and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MINHA ASIF and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)

Representation

  • Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.12-A & 14(3)

Right of cross-examination struck off by Trial Court

Interlocutory order, challenge to

Scope

The petitioners challenged an interlocutory order passed by the Family Court, whereby, their right to cross-examine the respondents' witnesses was struck off

The order was assailed in a Constitutional petition before the High Court, against dismissal of which, the petitioners then sought leave to appeal

Held: Section 12-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 made it obligatory for the Trial Court to decide/dispose of a case/family suit within a period of six months from the date of institution

Indeed, every litigant has a right to cross-examine the witnesses deposing evidence but that cannot be stretch down to an unreasonable desire of the counsel and litigant seeking adjournments one after the other and the reasons which were not found sufficient by the Trial Court, as could be seen that numerous opportunities were provided

Moreover, Family Courts Act, 1964 restricted and prohibited challenge to an interim/interlocutory order in terms of section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964

The impugned order which maintained the order of the Family Court was maintained by the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused.

S.14(3)

Interim/interlocutory order passed by Family Court, challenge to

Scope

Interim/interlocutory order passed by the Family Court, under the restriction placed in terms of section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, is not allowed to be challenged

Trial under the special law especially the Family Courts Act, 1964 requires strict adherence which ought to be complied with, otherwise the essence and effectiveness of the law will be frustrated

If any right is curtailed by any interim order not appealable, it can well be merged with and into the final order and would then, if required, be available for a challenge along with other grounds.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.

This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 5091-P of 2023. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners had assailed an interlocutory order dated 26.10.2023 of the learned Judge Family Court-V, Peshawar, whereby not only the application for remission of cost of three thousand rupees (Rs.3000/-) was turned down, but the right of the petitioners to cross-examine the respondents' witnesses has also been struck off. The order of the Trial Court dismissing the application for remission of cost and the right of cross-examination of the plaintiffs'/ respondents' witnesses being struck off is reproduced below for ease of reference: Plaintiff through father and counsel while defendant No. 1 in person along with counsel present. The defendants' counsel submitted an application for remission of cost imposed upon the defendants on last date on the ground that he (the counsel) could not appear before the court due to his some family function. As per the record, the plaintiff's entire evidence was present on last date but defendant No.1 had sought adjournment without giving any reason resultantly, the defendants were burdened with cost of Rs. 3000/- for putting the opposite party inconvenience. The defendants' counsel has not given any plausible reason for his absence, hence, the application in hand stands reject. Complete evidence of the plaintiff was present since morning. Examination-in-chief was recorded as PW-2 and PW-3. After recording examination-in-chief of witnesses, the defendants' counsel stated that he has case before High Court and that he shall cross-examine the witnesses after getting free from High Court. At 02.30 pm, the defendants' counsel appeared and submitted an application for granting time to prepare cross-examination of the PWs. As per the record, the plaintiff's complete evidence was present on the last two dates also, however, the defendants had obtained adjournments for recording evidence on different pretexts. Defendants were given notice of striking off right of cross-examination firstly on 11.09.2023, however, despite that the defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. On last date of hearing, i.e. 05.10.2023, the defendants were again given last chance on cost of Rs.3000/- and notice of striking off right of cross-examination was kept intact, however, today also the defendants' counsel failed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses without any sufficient cause. Hence, in the present situation, the Court is left with no option but to strike off right of cross-examined of the defendants. Right of the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses is hereby struck off.

2. Section 12A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 makes it obligatory for the Trial Court to decide/dispose of a case/family suit within a period of six months from the date of institution. Indeed, it is a right of every litigant to cross-examine the witnesses deposing evidence, but that cannot be stretched down to an unreasonable desire of the counsel and litigant seeking adjournments one after the other and the reasons which were not found sufficient by the Trial Court, as could be seen that numerous opportunities were provided.

3. Another aspect of the case is that the aforesaid special law restricts and prohibits a challenge made to an interim/ interlocutory order in terms of section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Though there is none but even the jurisdictional defect could also be placed before the court adjudicating the trial of a family suit. The trial under the special law especially under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 requires strict adherence which ought to be complied, otherwise the essence and effectiveness of the law will be frustrated. Indeed, if any right is curtailed by any interim order not appealable, it can well be merged with and into final order and would then, if required be available for a challenge along with other grounds.

4. This being the situation, no interference is required. The impugned order which maintained the order of the learned Judge Family Court-V, Peshawar dated 26.10.2023 is maintained.

5. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. UN/K-2/SC Petition dismissed.