One can only rely on a document, a paper or thing which exist--Document in dispute did not exist--At the time of filing of dissolution suit, how could she-

 PLJ 2006 Lahore 37

West Pakistan Family Court Acts, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--

----S. 7(3)(ii)--Interpretation of--Suit for dissolution of marriage--Documents of reliance--Filing of "relies"--Held: One can only rely on a document, a paper or thing which exist--Document in dispute did not exist--At the time of filing of dissolution suit, how could she--Rely on the same at that time--S. 7(3)(ii) not attracted--Petition dismissed.              [Pp. 38 & 39] A, B, C, D & E

Ch. Tajammal Murad, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Tahir Jameel Butt, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 1.2.2005.

 PLJ 2006 Lahore 37

[Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi]

Present: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.

FAISAL ZULFIQAR--Petitioner

versus

JUDGE FAMILY COURT RAWALPINDI and another--Respondents

W.P. No. 3403 of 2004, decided on 1.2.2005.

Order

In the present writ petition, an order of the Judge Family Court; Rawalpindi dated 27.11.2004 has been impugned whereby Respondent No. 2 was allowed to bring on record the decision of revision petition dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had not mentioned the said document in her list of reliance as it is required under Section 7 sub-section 3(ii) Family Court Ordinance. He further contends that earlier that request of Respondent No. 2 was turned down by Respondent No. 1, therefore, Respondent No. 1 was not competent to grant the same subsequently. Accordingly to him, the impugned order is clearly violative of mandatory provisions of Section 7 sub-section 3(ii) of the Family Court Ordinance, therefore, liable to be set aside.

2.  The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that suit for dissolution was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 9.9.2003, whereas, the private complaint was filed in December, 2003, against which a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 29.5.2004. He elaborated that the said document was not available to him as the suit was filed much earlier i.e. on 9.9.2003. For the same, he could not have referred the same at the time of filing dissolution suit. He further contends that it is not correct that Respondent No. 1 refused to grant permission to place on record the document earlier. He referred to the statement of DW-3 wherein DW-3 referred the above document during her cross-examination which was objected on the ground that the same could not be referred during the cross-examination. The learned counsel submits that in view of the above objection, a proper application was filed before Respondent No. 1, on which the impugned order has been passed which is a valid and well reasoned order and should not be set aside.

3.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of Section 7 sub-section 3 (ii) of the Family Court Act which reads as under:--

"(ii) Where he relies (underline is mine) on any other document not in his possession or power, as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be appended to the plaint (giving reasons of relevancy of these documents to the claim in the plaint).

The pivotal word is "relies". One can rely on a document, a paper or thing which exist. The document is dispute certainly did not exist even not conceived  at  the  time  of  filing  of  dissolution  suit  by  Respondent  No. 2, therefore, how could she or her counsel rely on the same at that time? As mentioned above, the suit for dissolution was filed before the Family Judge, Rawalpindi on 9.9.2003, the decision in the criminal revision was given by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 29.5.2004. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Section 7 sub-section 3(ii) of Family Court Act is not attracted in the fats and circumstances of the present case pending before the learned Family Judge, Rawalpindi.

4.  In view of the above discussion, I hold that this writ petition is devoid of any convincing ground/reason, hence dismissed.

(H.A.)  Petition dismissed