P L D 1976 Quetta 97 (PLP)

Khalid Malik for Appellants. I. H. B. Hanafi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 24th June 1976. This second appeal is preferred against the order dated 1-10-1971 passed by the District Judge, Quetta who affirmed the order of the Civil Judge, Quetta dated 24-5-1971 whereby a Civil Suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent against the appellants and one Mat. Razia on 15-2-1971. The basis of the suit was that Mst. Razia falsely claimed to be the wife of the respondent. The respondent sought a declaration to the effect that she may be restrained from claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are sister, brother, and brother-in-law respectively of Mst. Razia may also be restrained from claiming that Mst. Razia was legally wedded wife of the respondent. A written statement was filed on 31-3-1971 wherein among other objections the main objection raised was that under the pro visions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act a suit for jactitation of marriage was exclusively triable by the Family Court and therefore the regular civil suit filed by the respondent was misconceived: The civil Court accepted the objection and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction on 24-5-1971. The appeal filed by the appellant was partially allowed on 14-6-1971 by the learned District Judge, who held that a suit for jactitation of marriage could proceed before the Family Court only between Mst. Razia and the respon dent whereas against the appellants who are relatives of Mst. Razia a regular civil suit was maintainable.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that after the decision of the learned District Judge another suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by the respondent on 19-5-1971 in which all the appellants have been impleaded as parties besides Mst. Razia. Facts regarding the subsequent suit are not very much relevant for the purpose of decision of this case and therefore the same are presently set aside from consideration.

4. The legal position is that jactitation of marriage had been added in the Schedule made under section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act by virtue of West Pakistan Family Courts (Amendment) Act of 1969. It .is therefore clear that a suit for jactitation of marriage would lie before the Family Court only. The learned Civil Judge was therefore justified in holding that a regular civil suit for jactitation of marriage was not maintain able. The finding of learned District Judge on this point is also valid. The only dispute which remains is that the learned counsel for the appellants, contends that since in the proceedings preferred against Mst. Razia by the respondents they have been impleaded as a party therefore the present suit was not maintainable against them. Before examining the position as to whether the Family Court would be competent only to adjudicate the disputes relating to matrimonial relations strictly between the wife and husband or he can pass a decree against other persons or parties also who may be impleased before him as defendants as is the position in the instant case. Before dealing with this question it would be advantageous to give the meanings of word jactitation' :- "In Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary the meanings of jactitation have been given as "boasting of some thing which is challenged by another. Specially with reference to the suit of jactitation of marriage where one of two parties has falsely boasted or given out that be or she was married to the other, whereby a common reputation of their matrimony might ensue, and the other sues for an order enjoining perpetual silence on the head." From the plain dictionary meaning of the word jactitation it is apparent that boasting of the existence of marriage which is challenged by another is the essence of the word jactitation and the suit for jactitation would therefore lie only in the circumstances when a person wants to silence the other in respect of such a boasting or claim. It is thus clear that the boasting and silencing in respect of such claim can be with regard to the persons who claim to be married to each other. Any other person who might be claiming that a person was married to another would not therefore be affected by this as he would naturally be boasting or claiming so only on the strength of what has been claimed by one person and is negatived by the other. such person or persons can only be sued for permanent injunction within the meaning of section 54 of the Specific Relief Act and such a suit would undisputedly be competent before a regular Civil Court and not before the Family Court which is a Court of special jurisdiction created to exclusively adjudicate matrimonial disputes.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Mst. Amina Begum v. Ghulam Nabi and 2 others (P L D 1974 Lah. 78), in this case the principle laid down is the same with which I have already shown my agreement. I am myself of the view that a suit for jactitation of marriage would be competent before a Family Court and the Family Court shall be entitled to give a declaration whether a person claiming to be married with the other person was claiming so rightly or wrongly. I am thus of the view that the suit for jactitation of marriage can be competently submitted to the Family Court and the Family a Court would be competent to give declaration as to whether matrimonial relations exist between the contestants or not. In case of other persons or parties who raise such a claim which is disputed the aggrieved person shall have to file a regular civil suit in order to obtain a prohibitory decree within the meaning of section 54 of the Specific Relief Act as a Family Court is not competent to pass such a decree.

6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed: The parties are however left to bear their own costs. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.