--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower---Family Court had struck off the right of the husband (petitioner) to file written statement and cross-examine witnesses of the wife-

 2012 CLC 1361

LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD NADEEM VS JUDGE FAMILY COURT

Constitutional petition--TERM , West Pakistan Family Court Act 1964--11 , West Pakistan Family Court Act 1964--17-A , West Pakistan Family Court Act 1964--5 , West Pakistan Family Court Act 1964--9 ,

Ss. 17A, 11, 9 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 10A---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dower---Family Court had struck off the right of the husband (petitioner) to file written statement and cross-examine witnesses of the wife---Contention of the husband was that on account of his failure to file a written statement, the Family Court could not deny him the right to cross-examine the witnesses of the wife---Validity---Family Court had struck off the husband's right to file written statement which was contrary to the provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---No provision for striking off the right to file written statement existed in the Act---Statutory right to strike off the defence of the defendant was only available under S.17-A of the Act, which was for interim maintenance---If the husband failed to file a written statement in accordance with the order of the Family Court, the Family Court may strike off his defence; and the case would then proceed in evidence and in terms of S.11 of the Act, the wife would lead evidence----At the time of recording evidence, the husband who had not filed his written statement, had a right to cross-examine the wife's witnesses---Such right was a valuable right and was prescribed in S.11(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Family Court, in the present case, could strike off husband's right to file a written statement, right of defence, but could not close his right to cross-examine the witnesses of the wife---Denial of said right would render the procedure adopted by the Family Court as unfair and against the right to a fair trial---High Court set aside impugned orders, remanded the case to Family Court with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the husband to file written statement and produce evidence---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.