-Challenge to--Petitioner filed a W.P. against her father and others averring therein that she contracted marriage with “respondent” but her parents were not happy with that marriage and they were forcing her to get divorce from “respondent”--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 16

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--

----S. 8--Family Courts Act, (XXXV of 1964), S. 14--Suit for jactitation of marriage--Dismissal of suit--Concurrent findings--Petitioner was filed a writ petition against her father etc. prior to constitution of suit--Existence of marriage--Challenge to--Petitioner filed a W.P. against her father and others averring therein that she contracted marriage with “respondent” but her parents were not happy with that marriage and they were forcing her to get divorce from “respondent”--Petitioner only produced her father as supporting witness but she failed to produce any independent witness in support of her oral assertions--The existence of marriage between parties was proved by Nikahnama Exh.D3, which was further supported by statement of Nikah Registrar (Dw-2) and judicial record in shape of--Evidence was rightly appreciated by both Courts below and no exception can be drawn to concurrent findings rendered by Courts of competent jurisdiction--Petition dismissed.

                                                                           [Para 6 & 7] A, B & C

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction--Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in terms of I Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is always dependent upon fact as to whether orders under scrutiny are result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and is there some patent illegality floating on surface of record.                                                                                        [Para 7] D

Mr. Muhammad Irfan Arbi, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Dildar Brolla, Advocate for Respondent
No. 3.

Date of hearing: 28.2.2018.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 16
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Mirza Viqas Rauf, J.
Mst. NAILA KAUSAR--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JATOI etc.--Respondents
W.P No. 3438 of 2015, decided on 28.2.2018.

Judgment

The matter in hand is offshoot of the controversy arising between the parties on 26.05.2010, when the petitioner approached the learned Judge Family Court, Jatoi by filing a suit for jactitation of marriage against the Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred as “respondent”) averring therein that she never entered into a contract of marriage with the “respondent”. As per averments contained in the plaint, the “respondent” alongwith others abducted the petitioner on 25.04.2010 and forcibly took her thumb impressions on some blank papers by extending threats. Father of the petitioner got registered an FIR No. 323 of 2010 against the “respondent” but in order to wriggle out of the criminal proceedings, the “respondent” pretended himself to be husband of the petitioner and presented a forged Nikahnama. The “respondent” contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he controverted the assertions contained in the plaint. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court framed necessary issues and after recording of evidence from both the sides, dismissed the suit by way of judgements dated 20th April, 2012. The said judgment and decree was questioned by the petitioner through an appeal under Section 14 of The Family Courts Act, 1964 but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jatoi by way of judgment and decree dated 26th September, 2013, hence this constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that judgments of both the Courts below are the result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and the same are not tenable under the law. Learned counsel maintained that evidence led by the petitioner was completely overlooked and the conclusion drawn by both the learned Courts below is erroneous. Learned counsel further maintained that though there are concurrent findings but those are based on misconception of facts and law and the petitioner has been non-suited on extraneous grounds.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the “respondent”, while defending the impugned judgments submitted that the evidence has rightly been appreciated by the learned Courts below and there is no illegality or material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The petitioner, in her suit, claimed that she was not the legally wedded wife of the “respondent” and the Nikahnama i.e. Exh.D3 was forged and fabricated one. In order to prove her assertion, the petitioner herself appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of plaint. In supported of her claim, she examined her father namely Abdul Ghaffar as PW-2. In documentary evidence, the petitioner tendered copies of certain documents as Exh.Pl to Exh.P8 and Mark-A to Mark-D. On the other hand, the “respondent” took stance that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife and Nikahnama i.e. Exh.D3 was validly registered with free will of the parties in presence of witnesses. The “respondent” himself appeared as DW-1 whereas he examined Nikah Registrar namely Hafiz Muhammad Shaffi as DW-2 and Muhammad Tariq as DW-3. Both these witnesses supported the stance of “respondent”.

6. Perusal of record reveals that prior to institution of suit for jactitation of marriage, the petitioner filed a W.P.No. 3671 of 2010 against her father and others averring therein that she contracted marriage with the “respondent” on 07.04.2010 but her parents were not happy with that marriage and they were forcing her to get divorce from the “respondent”. On said writ petition, order dated 26th April, 2010 (Exh.D4) was passed by this Court. Perusal of Nikahnama, which is available on file as Exh.D3, reveals that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7th April, 2010. The name of Abdul Ghaffar, who is father of the petitioner, is mentioned in column No. 7 of the Nikahnama as representative of the bride and his signatures are also available in column No. 25 of the Nikahnama. Both the parties have though supported their stances through oral evidence but documentary evidence in shape of judicial record i.e. Exh.D4 is sufficient to draw an inference that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the “respondent” by way of Nikahnama Exh.D3. Moreover, the petitioner only produced her father as supporting witness but she failed to produce any independent witness in support of her oral assertions. The existence of marriage between the parties was proved by Nikahnama Exh.D3, which was further supported by statement of Nikah Registrar (Dw-2) and judicial record in shape of Exh.D4. Another important aspect which, gives strength to the case of “respondent” is that as per Nikahnama Exh.D3, the Nikah was performed in District Muzaffargarh, where the parties were ordinarily residing.

7. After having a critical analysis of the material available, I am of the considered view that evidence was rightly appreciated by both the learned Courts below and no exception can be drawn to the Concurrent findings rendered by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. The exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is always dependent upon the fact as to whether orders under scrutiny are the result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and is there some patent illegality floating on the surface of record. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or material irregularity warranting exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court.

8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is without any merits, resultantly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed