Muhammad Abdullah S/o Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS District Judge, Karachi East and Others (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.S-305 of 2024 [Muhammad Abdullah ......v.....IX Additional District Judge East Karachi & others]

Date of Hearing : 21.03.2024

Petitioner through : Mr. Shahid Nawaz Khan Niazi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Respondents through : Nemo.

ORDER

Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J:- The Petitioner impugns an Judgment dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned Respondent No.1 in Family Appeal No.237/2023.

2.Family Suit No. 4241 of 2019 was filed for recovery of maintenance by respondent No.3 and same was allowed vide Judgment & Decree dated 30.01.2021 and petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.3, impugned the said Judgment & Decree of the learned trial Court by filing Family Appeal No.237/2023 which appeal was allowed vide impugned Judgment dated 28.11.2023 and petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.3 instead of Rs.50,000/-, hence the petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Judgment dated 28.11.2023 of the Appellate Court.

3.Learned counsel was confronted with the maintainability hereof as the Apex Court disapproved of agitation of family matters in writ petition, however, the counsel remained unable to demonstrate the existence of any jurisdictional defect meriting

recourse to writ jurisdiction. The crux of the argument articulated was that the evidence was not appreciated by the respective forums in its proper perspective, hence, the exercise be conducted afresh in writ jurisdiction since no further provision of appeal was provided in the statute.

4.Heard and perused the record. It is settled law that the ambit of a writ petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further appeal is provided1, and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned. It is trite law2 that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law. The impugned judgments appear to be well-reasoned and no manifest infirmity is discernable therein or that they could not have been rested upon the rationale relied upon.

5.The Supreme Court has recently had occasion to revisit the issue of family matters being escalated in writ petitions, post exhaustion of the entire statutory remedial hierarchy, in Hamad Hasan3 and has deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words. It has inter alia been illumined that in such matters the High Court does Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court reported as PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391.

Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323 Per Ayesha A. Malik J in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & Others reported as

2023 SCMR 1434.

not ordinarily appraise, re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact; cannot permit constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for appellate / revisionary jurisdiction; ought not to lightly interfere with the conclusiveness ascribed to the final stage of proceedings in the statutory hierarchy as the same could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent; and the Court may remain concerned primarily with any jurisdictional defect. Similar views were earlier expounded in Arif Fareed4.

6.In so far as the plea for de novo appreciation of evidence is concerned, it would suffice to observe that writ jurisdiction is not an amenable forum in such regard5.

7.In view of the rationale and deliberation delineated above, the petition at hand is dismissed alongwith pending application.

Karachi Dated:21.03.2024

JUDGE

Aadil Arab.

Per Amin ud Din Ahmed J in Arif Fareed vs. Bibi Sara & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415.