P L D 2007 Quetta 38 (PLP)

AHMED KHAN LASHARI, J.

By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, order dated 13-10-2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I-cum-Family Judge, Sibi, Division Sibi, has been challenged, whereby the petitioner's application seeking dismissal/rejection of respondent's suit for want of jurisdiction and being barred by time, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner alleged that about six years back, his deceased son contracted marriage with the respondent and on his death, she, carrying pregnancy of 3/4 months, left the house of petitioner and started residing with her parents where she made abortion, The respondent, after lapse of three years, filed suit in the Court of Family Judge for recovery of dowry articles. The petitioner vide application sought dismissal/rejection of the suit being barred by time and for want of jurisdiction, but was dismissed by means of impugned order.

3. Chaudhry Anwar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for respondent, contended that the suit filed by the respondent was well within time and the learned Family Judge, having exclusive jurisdiction, rightly decided to proceed with the matter. He in support of his arguments referred the case laws-reported in 1996 MLD 1997, 2003 NLR 365.

4. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as respondent through her counsel and have gone through the record including the impugned order. The petitioner argued that his son expired on 8-10-2002 while suit for recovery of dowry articles was filed in the year 2005, thus, suit being barred by time was liable to be dismissed. Law requires that where no period of limitation is prescribed in filing suit for recovery of dowry article, the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act would be applicable, which provides a period of' six years, but when the claim is for a specific movable property or for compensation for wrongful taking, the period of limitation is three years, when the demand for return of the articles is refuted and the possession over articles become unlawful, the question of limitation in such circumstances being mixed question of law and fact could only be decided by recording evidence of the parties. While dealing with the question of jurisdiction of the Court, it may be noted that before amendment to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, suits for recovery of dowry articles were to be instituted in the Civil Court and after the amendment, such cases either pending or instituted were made exclusively triable by the Family Court vide Act No.VII of 1997, whereby claim of dower or dowry articles were added in the schedule to the Act. The petitioner further contended that since his son has expired, thus, the respondent's claim against him does not fall within the jurisdiction of Family Court and Civil Court was the competent forum for recovery of the articles. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Family Court is a special forum which provides expeditious settlement of the dispute relating to marriages and the other family affairs and matters connected therewith, including the dower and dowry articles. Section 2(d) of the Act provides that "Party" shall include any person whose presence as such is considered necessary for a proper decision of the dispute and whom the Family Court adds as a party to such dispute. The jurisdiction of Family Court is confined to the particular stated disputes, the respondent claiming recovery of dowry articles or dower on demand for the property of husband, certainly after the death of husband would not be abated and accordingly suit for maintenance for the minor or minors would not be buried, in case of death of the mother/wife. Since the dowry articles in the ownership of wife and same are recoverable even after the death of the husband then whosoever is in possession of these articles may be impleaded as a party as due to the death of the husband the responsibility of the legal heirs for return of the dowry articles is not extinguished and the suit for recovery of the dowry articles certainly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court as held in case of Muhammad Anwar and another v. Addl. District Judge Lahore and others reported in 2003 YLR 365 + PLD 1978 Lah.

711. What has been discussed herein above, we are of the view that the learned Family Judge, on proper interpretation of law, rightly decided to proceed with the case and rejected the application. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference, thus, petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. H.B.T./2/Quetta Petition dismissed.