ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. WP 9462/2014
Amir Shahzad

Sr. No. of
Date of
order/
order/
proceeding proceeding

9.7.2014

Versus

Addl. Distt. Judge, Multan etc.

Order with signature of Judge, and that of

parties or counsel, where necessary.

Mr. M. Usman Tariq Butt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has

challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2012 passed
by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan, and the
judgment and decree dated 31.3.2014 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Multan.
2.

The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 filed a

suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, recovery

of dowry articles, recovery of maintenance allowance and
recovery of gold ornaments against the petitioner. The
petitioner being the defendant filed a contesting written
statement and upon divergent pleadings of the parties the
following issues were framed:1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its
present form? OPD
2. Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the
court with clean hands? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to
maintenance allowance, if yes, at what rate
and for what period? OPP

WP No.9462/2014

5. Whether the plaintiff was given dowry

articles as detained in the plaint and it was
still in defendant possession? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiffs 08 Tola golden
ornaments were outstanding? OPP
7. Relief.
3.

The learned trial Court after giving its elaborate

findings on all the issues granted the following relief

through judgment and decree dated 26.5.2012:In the light of above said discussion, suit for
plaintiffs is partially decreed against the
defendant with the observation that plaintiff is
entitled to recover dowry articles mentioned in
the list Ex.P-5 except golden ornaments
mentioned at serial No.1 to 13 or in lieu of their
price Rs.3,50,000/-. The suit of the plaintiff to
the extent of maintenance allowance and gold
ornaments weighing 08 tolas is hereby
dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that
marriage of the parties has already been
dissolved vide order dated 26.3.2010 and
consequently plaintiff has to restore the dower.
Decree sheet be drawn. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after its
due completion.
4.

Aggrieved

by

the

judgment

and

decree

dated 26.5.2012 the petitioner and respondent No.3 filed

appeals

before

the

learned

Additional

District

Judge, Multan, and through a consolidated judgment and

decree dated 31.3.2014 the appeals filed by respondent No.3
as well as by the petitioner were dismissed. Hence, this writ
petition.
5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

impugned judgments and decrees dated 26.5.2012 and

31.3.2014 passed by both the Courts below are illegal and
against law and facts. It is further argued that both the
Courts below have erred in law while passing the impugned
judgments and decrees to the extent of grant of dowry

WP No.9462/2014

articles to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- is a result of misreading

and non-reading of evidence.
6.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

7.

It is a settled principle of law that purpose of enacting

the special law regarding the family disputes is to advance

justice and to avoid technicalities which are hindrance in
providing ultimate justice to the parties. It is pertinent to
mention here that West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964
was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal
of disputes relating to marriages and other family affairs and
special procedure was provided to achieve this object and
therefore, the legislature, in its wisdom, excluded the
application of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is
reproduced below:17. Provisions of Evidence Act and Code of
Civil Procedure not to apply. (1) Save as
otherwise expressly provided by or under this
Act, the provisions of the [Qanun-e-Shahdat,
1984 (P.O. No.10 of 1984)] and the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 [except sections 10
and 11] shall not apply to proceedings before
any Family Court, [in respect of part I of
Schedule]
(2) Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873,
shall apply to all proceedings before the Family
Courts.
8.

The purpose of enacting Family Courts Act, 1964 is to

frustrate the technicalities for the purpose of justice between

the parties in the shortest possible manner. All that the
Family Courts Act, 1964 has done is that it has changed the
forum, altered the method of trial and empowered the Court
to grant better reliefs. The provisions of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are
not applicable in stricto senso to proceedings before the

WP No.9462/2014

Family Court by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, 1964.

Family Court has to regulate its own proceedings in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1964; and in
doing so it has to proceed on the premises that every
procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition is found
in law. Therefore, a mere fact that a party did not formally
prove a document is of no legal consequence.
It is observed that the evidence adduced before the
Family Court cannot be evaluated and appraised in a manner
as it is appreciated in the cases presented under Civil
Procedure Code.
9.

Respondent No.3 had produced her list of dowry

articles as Ex.P-5 which has been rightly relied upon by the

learned Judge Family Court while excluding the gold
ornaments mentioned at serial No.1 to 13 in the list of dowry
articles (Ex.P-5). It has been held in Mst. Shakeela Bibi Vs.
Mohammad Israr and others (2012 MLD 756) that the
solitary statement of wife is sufficient to prove the claim of
dowry articles. It was further held that this notion is
misconceived that the wife while making the claim for
dowry articles was required to prove the case in terms of
requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. West
Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is a special law and
provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 have been
excluded through section 17 of the Act, 1964.
10.

Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings

of fact against the petitioner therefore, this Court, in its

constitutional jurisdiction, should not interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
It is settled proposition of law that extra-ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked
unless the order of subordinate Court was illegal, perverse or
defective in terms of exercise of jurisdiction. Fact that
through an evidence one could reach to a different

WP No.9462/2014

conclusion was no ground for invocation of extra-ordinary

constitutional jurisdiction.
11.

Before parting with this order, it is observed that even

the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned

Additional District Judge, Multan, was barred by time as the
petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Judge Family Court dated 26.5.2012 filed appeal
on 3.1.2013.
Rule 22 of West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965,
provides that an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 1964
shall be preferred within 30 days of the passing of the decree
or a decision excluding the time required for obtaining the
certified copies. Although it is provided in proviso to
Rule 22 of West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 that the
Appellate court may for sufficient cause extend the period.
But there is nothing on record to suggest that any application
was filed alongwith appeal for an extension of time nor any
such ground has been taken in the memo of appeal as well as
in the grounds of the instant petition.
12.

For what has been discussed above, this writ petition

is dismissed.
(M. Sohail Iqbal Bhatti)
Judge

Saleem

Approved for reporting