NASEER AHMED Versus SUMEYYA

ORDER
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----Through this petition under Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner calls in
question the validity of the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the
learned Family Judge-I, Quetta, (hereinafter "the trial Court") whereby the
application filed by the plaintiff/respondent for amendment in the prayer
clause was accepted the same and the parties were directed to appear before
the Court for reconciliation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for
dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty, recovery of dower amount and
dowry articles and maintenance before the learned Family Judge-I, Quetta,
with the following prayer:-
"a) To dissolve the marriage tie on the basis of cruelty.
b) To direct the defendant to pay the Haq Mehr amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
outstanding against him.
c) To direct the defendant to return all the dowry articles (as per annexed list)
to the plaintiff lying at his house, or in alternate thereto pay its amount.
d) To also direct the defendant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance
to the plaintiff since marriage tie till Iddat period.
e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be
awarded, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play".
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner being a defendant on legal as well as
factual grounds.
4. After filing the written statement the reconciliation proceedings were
conducted by the learned trial Court and the same were failed and the learned
trial Court directed the parties to produce their respective evidence.
5. During proceedings the plaintiff/respondent filed an application for
amendment with the pray that the plaintiff/respondent intends to amend her
suit in the title, body, and likewise in the prayer clause by seeking 'dissolution
of marriage on the basis of Khula' instead of 'dissolution on the basis of
cruelty' The application was contested by the petitioner/defendant on legal as
well as factual grounds by means of filing a rejoinder.
6. After hearing the argument of both the learned counsel for the parties, the
learned trial Court directed the plaintiff/respondent to amend the plaint to the
extent of title and prayer clause of the suit and the parties were also directed
to appear before the Court for reconciliation on 26.11.2019.
Being aggrieved from the order dated 26.11.2019 the petitioner/defendant
filed the instant petition.
7. On 20.08.2020 despite service and repeated calls, counsel for the petitioner
was not in attendance. Same was the position on 22.07.2020, 24.06.2020,
12.05.2020, 16.04.2020, 16.03.2020 and 25.02.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared on the date after filing
the instant petition on 18.12.2019.
Consequent to the above, we are left with no other option but to decide the
petition being at katcha peshi stage on the basis of available record.
8. A perusal of record reveals that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for
dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty, recovery of dower amount and
dowry articles and maintenance and during course of the proceedings she
filed an application for amending her suit in the title, body, and likewise in the
payer clause by seeking 'dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' instead
of 'dissolution on the basis of cruelty'.
9. The Act was enforced for the purpose of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on
Family Courts for expeditious settlement and disposal of the dispute relating
to the marriage and other family affairs connected therewith and thus the
Family Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate
upon the matters specified in the schedule. Thus, it is clear that by allowing
the amendment, called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition, the
Family Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction and the order was passed in the
best interest of both the parties to avoid another round of litigation between
them. Even otherwise, in the absence of any prohibition in law the Family
Court was justified to pass any order in the interest of justice and for the
expeditious disposal of any, a dispute relating to marriage which was within its
exclusive jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that
Judge Family Court is competent to regulate its own proceedings for
expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes as the Act does not make
provisions for every conceivable eventuality or unforeseen circumstances.
Reliance is placed on a case reported as Akhtar Ali Said Beha v. Mst. Naheed
Bibi (PLD 2003 Pesh 630).
10. The learned trial Court after allowing the application of the
plaintiff/respondent also directed the parties to appear before the Court for
reconciliation which was also called in question by the petitioner/defendant in
this writ petition. The object of the Act is to make out efforts of compromise
and speedily settle family disputes. Even after evidence under section 12 of
the Act the Court before passing a judgment has to make one more effort of
reconciliation as it was attempted at the pretrial stage. The emphasis on
compromise both before the trial and even after the trial is concluded in a
legal sense reflects on the sensitivity of the disputes between man and wife
and its adverse effect on the society. The family disputes are not limited to the
four walls of a home and between two persons. It disrupts the mental fabric of
both the parties and therefore its fallout is always dangerous for those who
are not even party to it directly. The worst hit by these issues is the children or
the parents of the parties. Therefore the powers of Family Court in terms of
sections 10(2) and (3) read with section 17 of the Act are not limited to a
particular stage of proceedings for the settlement of any 'ascertained issue'
between the parties. The mere use of the word 'pretrial' would not mean trial
has not started. Interestingly enough in section 10 of the Act, the 'pretrial'
stage is after the written statement is filed by the defendant. The Act is
designed for speedy settlement of family disputes to save not only the parties
from delay in disposal of their issues but also to control the damage to the
society which generally is natural on the disintegration of families.
11. In the case in hand, at first plaintiff/respondent claimed dissolution of
marriage on the basis of cruelty and during trial she filed an application and
prayed that now the plaintiff/respondent "seeking dissolution of marriage on
the basis of Khula" instead of "dissolution on the basis of cruelty" and the
learned trial Court again called the parties for reconciliation. The ground taken
by the petitioner/defendant in this petition is neither reasonable nor plausible,
as such, while passing the impugned order the learned trial Court has not
committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in
its constitutional jurisdiction.
Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine.
SA/230/Bal.Petition dismissed.