However, held that proceedings
launched in term of section 9 of the Ordinance
will not erode the suit subsequently instituted
before the family court under the provisions of
the Act.
(iii) The plain reading of section 9(1) of the
Ordinance shows that remedy of maintenance
allowance under section 9 ibid is in addition to
seeking any other legal remedy available. In view
of legal position and case law discussed above,
conclusion can be drawn that same matter cannot
proceeding simultaneously under the Ordinance
and the Act, however, subsequent proceedings
under any of the above laws will not be a bar
merely because earlier proceeding launched and
concluded under the other law.
(iv) The case of Muhammad Khalil-urRehman, relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner relates to maintenance allowance awarded by a Magistrate under section 488
Cr.P.C. and not under the Ordinance. In said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Act
being special law, will prevail over general law
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Family Courts will have
exclusive jurisdiction to try case of maintenance
after promulgation of the Act. This judgment is
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
present case where the maintenance allowance is
fixed under the provision of the Ordinance and
Rules, which have specifically been saved under
section 21 of the Act. Therefore, it can safely be
concluded that the impugned orders are not
without jurisdiction
(2002 MLD 1716).
(2018 CLC 836),
W.P.No.238815 of 2018
