Family Courts, Family Court could not consolidate suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage-

I hold that there was no limi­tation on the power of the learned Family Court to make an order which was necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of its process. It is not at all the case of the petitioner that consolidation of suits in the present case was not necessary for the ends of justice and that it would not have led to abuse of process of the Court if any other procedure would have been adopted.

Family Courts, Family Court could not consolidate suits for restitution of conjugal rights ant dissolution of marriage-Held not correct

151-West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17­Consolidation of suits-Contention that consolidation of suits could be effected under S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), and such section not being applicable to proceedings before Family Courts, Family Court could not consolidate suits for restitution of conjugal rights ant dissolution of marriage-Held not correct-Civil Court consolidates two suits fn exercise of its inherent powers and not in exercise of any power specifically conferred by S. 151-Powers of Family Court to make order necessary for ends of justice and to prevent abuse of its process, such as to consolidate two suits to avoid conflict of judgments, not subject to any limitation

P L D 1975 Lahore 567
Before Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
LAL-Petitioner
versus
Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2006 of 1974, decided on 31st October 1974.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 151-West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17­Consolidation of suits-Contention that consolidation of suits could be effected under S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), and such section not being applicable to proceedings before Family Courts, Family Court could not consolidate suits for restitution of conjugal rights ant dissolution of marriage-Held not correct-Civil Court consolidates two suits fn exercise of its inherent powers and not in exercise of any power specifically conferred by S. 151-Powers of Family Court to make order necessary for ends of justice and to prevent abuse of its process, such as to consolidate two suits to avoid conflict of judgments, not subject to any limitation.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinuder for Petitioner.

ORDER

The grievance in this writ petition, wherein the challenge is to a decree for dissolution of marriage granted by a learned Family Court in favour of respondent No. 1, is mainly on the ground that the suit of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was consolidated with the suit for dissolution of marriage, without competence. To be precise, the contention raised is that the Civil Procedure Code except specified provisions does not apply to the proceedings conducted under the Family Courts Act and because section 151 ibid, under which according to the learned counsel consolidation of suits can take place, is not such a provision, therefore, the learned Family Court was not competent to consoli­date both the suits.

2. It is true that section 17 of the Family Courts Act provides that "save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except sections 10 and 11 shall not apply to proceedings before any Family Court". But I do not agree with the learned counsel that the consolidation of suits is done ordinarily by civil Courts under any provision of the Civil Procedure Code specifically so empowering the Court. Section 151 does not confer any power. It only preserves and keeps intact the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Looked at in this light if a civil Court consolidates two suits by making reference to section 151, C. P. C., it does so in exercise of its inherent power and not in exercise o any power specifically conferred by section 151. In reality, while doing so, section 10 of the C. P. Code also comes into play at least indirectly. Instead of staying the proceedings in one suit and permitting the other to continue with possible results of conflict of judgments in respect of the same subject­matter, inherent powers are resorted to. The question arises whether, leaving aside the nomenclature given to the exercise of such powers, the Family Court has no power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of its own process. If the answer is that it can make such orders, then the next question would arise whether there is anything in the Family Courts Act which prescribes some special procedure which shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect such power of the Court. The answer to this second question obviously is in the negative. After removing the technical restrictions contained in the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, the power of the Family Courts to make 'such orders' has been protected as without any restrictive limitations.

3. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that there was no limi­tation on the power of the learned Family Court to make an order which was necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of its process. It is not at all the case of the petitioner that consolidation of suits in the present case was not necessary for the ends of justice and that it would not have led to abuse of process of the Court if any other procedure would have been adopted. For these reasons. I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

S. A. H. Petition dismissed.