Mst. Mariam Butt D/o Shuja Uddin (Petitioner) VS Asad and Others (Respondent)

, Fo'*n1: Po'..t I No .??e-\ ^ C' ? *tr \j L.L. bo\r CIII{'I'IFICn'l'I1 0l:llll:Il!!il-!.lUrR'l' or SIND Altll'l*U C.P No'S'1084 of 2023

Mariam Butt

Vs.

Asacl & ors

I tr( i!"1--(_0t r!{'! -01; ,llNuu

(t ,\itrvle.

t t t t I tt,.\ | | i ttt-t q_l I I t ttt' lt

Mr. Justice Moltanrntad l(arinr Khan Agha

I ).rlt's rrl'lrcrrt ittg I 5-08-2024

I )eei,le,i trrt l 5-0ti-:01.1

lr (a) Jtrclgtrtertt apllrol eti lol Re porting l'e.s

CIJ R'f I IT ICA 'f Ir.

*lorder is based upon or enunciates.a principle ot lrtrr certitled that the judgmerrt *1.t".ia.. a questtn if luu, rvhich is of first impression/distinguishesl. (')r cr-rtrlcs rcverses/explains a previous decision'

* Strike out rvhichever is not applicable'

NOI'l:: - (i)'l'his slip is orlly to bc trsetl rvheu sotrle actiott is to be takcn' (ii) Il tlrc slip is usctl, thc [{eadcr ttrttst attach it to thc top ol'lltc ljrst Page ol' tltc .i trcl gtnurrt.

(iii)I{caclcr nrust tsk the Judgc rvriting tlte Jtrdgntetlt rvheth"r tltc JurJgtnerlt is itp;rrovcd lbr rcporting'

(iv)'l"trosc clirce tiuns rvlrich lrc uttt lo bc trsctl sltottltl bc dcletcrl.

rrlt

YY

IN THE HIGI.I COURT OF SINDH AT I(ARACHI

Const. Pr:titron NJ- tbsq I r*'

- )d3 Mst, t'lariartt Dutt ( D/o. Sltuja Udditt, ,,),1,1 r.,,i.

P1s5lirn, adt.rlt, r*:;iclcnI of ll iii,r',' llorrsc No.7U.1, Strccl No.l2, l(lsltrttrr l'lill l.tltvti,

I

I'l.,rr ,r1r1 ( 1rl1)tlV, l(illilChi. ,.. Petitione r Vcrsus ,\..,:,.''.,,.,,rlr,rntrtr,t(l SltarccI ,r,r ti,1 ,,,jit I li i 111r11.',' No.1416, ).1i,'i,1 i11r r)i, i.lttililrnl,r (,,]l(ior'l/ i!. .:, i.1.r:.1ttl I'lttlt'.',tj.t ( ill'r rrl i'.1 .tl^raz, Irlarr- ot)t (.olLttt.y, l..ll(.1 {-lll.

7 VIlth Addl. Dislrrcl i\ Si:ssiotrs Juclge, , Karachi-Soutlt

3 XVll Civil &.Family Judge, Karach i-South. Re:;pondeni:

CONSTITUTION PTTITION UNDEIT ARi'ICLH 199 OF THE ISLAMIC ITEPU[]LIC OF PAI(IsTAN T973 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied wittt the impugnecr Order dated 09.08,2A23 passed by the respondent No.2 in Family Appeal No.12412023 filed by appellant and ludgment & Decree dated 30,05.2023 in Family Suit No.1589/2023 ti

I

passed by the learned respondent N0.3, hence the petitioner begs to prefer this petition on amongst others, the following inte;-alia Facts & Grounds:- Certified copies Order dated A9,08,2023 and parte Juclgment & Decree rlated 30,05,2023 are annexed herewitlt and marked as annexure A & A/1,

F/\CTS

) That the brief [acts oF case ilre thal the petitioner filed Family Suit No,1589/2Q22 bcfore the learned respondent No,3 and stated there in that tlte petitioner was married with the respondent No,1 on 17.03 .2022 against the dower amount oF Rs.160;000/=, out of whlch Rs. 10,000/= was paid and remaining amount is still unp'aid. At the time of Rukhsati parents and other relatirres of petitioner gave her

ORDBR SHEBT

IN HIGH CO URT OF' S INDH I(A CHI

C.P. No.S-1084 of 2023

Date Ordcr rvith signat urc(s) of Judge(s) FRtrSI{ CASB.

I. Iror ordcrs ott office olrjct:liotls

2.For ltcnrittg of tnnitt cttsc'

1,5.q8,2Oz"C:

l\lr. ;\tirtittt ltlbrrl, Aclvoctttc for thc Pctitioner. I\1r'. |'rrr"nrrrrrrrll;rlt, Advocsrte for Rcspondent. l\1 i s. Slrt:ltlt'r'itt' ():tzi ancl S. Arshad Hussain Naqvi, Addl ;\rlvor'irtr:s ('it'ttt't'al, Sirrclh,

Muhanunarl Kcrr{rn Khan Agha, J. Pctitioner Mst. Mariam Butt had filed a suit for Dissolution of Marriage, Recovery of Dowry Articles and Maintenance as recovery of Rs.95000/- being Family Suit No.1589 of 2A22 which proceeded in the Court of XVIIth Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate (south) Karachi. After full clressed trial wherein the evidence was recorded learned trial Court passerl order dated 30.05.2023 where the following orders in terms r.rl Dorvry Articles which the petitioner should receive, u'ere pitssecl which is reproduced hereunder:-

"The whys and wherelores lead this court to order thirt plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at rate oi Rs.15,000 /- far Iddat period. Defendant is entitled for dower amount of Rs.10,000/- from plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of articles i.e. Bed, dressing table, Cupboard, showcase, Fridge, Microrvave Oven, Washing Machine, Juicer Machine, Iron, Pedestal Fan, LED, Sewing Machine, Wall Clock, Stabilizer, Marble dinner set, plastic dinner set, Water set, hot pot set, Water Cooler set, Non-stick set, cutlery set, Cooking spoons set, Pressure cooker, tu'o blankets, one A/C blanket, hve bed sheets, Pizza plales set, bridal sel, prayer met in case of missing any article defendant is directed to pay the amount of such missing article.

I

The Costs shall follorv the event' Office to prepare the decree accordingly,"

2, Petitioner Mst, Mariam Butt being dissatisfied with aforesaid order as she wanted more dowry articles returned hled Family Appeal No.l2al2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2023 largely that it was time barred in the following terms:J

Y

XAK''

Y6

"llirvittg l'c11itrrl , tlrc itrgutltct'tts, it is obscrvctl thirt .Lrtlgnxirrr atrd tlccrt'c is datccl 30'05-2023 rvhcrcits n1.,,iii,rti,r, for r.r.rtili<'rl copy rvas lilccl o,3[-05-2023 ,,iril ,',,*r rvits llitirl orr 0li-0(r-2023 rvhilc cop\' \\'ir s rlrl.ivr.t.r.rl orr lo-(xr 2021J. s() cven if wr: r:xclurlc th(' lirrrC t't'rlttisilt' fot' olrtitittittll r:crtifictl r:oJtics, it is olrst.l.r,t'rl tltrrt cct'lil'it'rl t:olly tvits tnitrlr: irvailirl;lr: on l0- ()(r 2()2.], tlrrrs r.vt'n il <.0ttsitlcr thlrt linritirtion st;rrts tlrclcrrl' lltctt fi'oltt l0"Ob''2023, []tc irpJrt:ltl rvits lo lrr' llrCli:t't'r'tl itt llcriorl ol'll0 rliryr; its provirlr:rl unrlr:r lhr:

lilrrrril\' 1,1111,/[?ltlcs, illt-ts lhc ap;lcitl wiis ltt lrr' tuirnilr.rrilcrl lry l0'O7 2023, horve:vcr; it only lrr:r:rt lrlt'scttlccl'26-O7]2023.'l'lrc apfiellant sick: in rlLtr: c()\lrsc of lrearitrg, ltavirtg obtaincd tirnc for rcnrlr:ring ilrllurneltts on 07-08-2023 filcd a separiltc applicirtiort urrdcr scctiotr 05 of thc Limitation Act, l9OfJ- '[ht: rcilson [hus tltroug]r zrpplicaticln in sLlpport ttl' platrsibilitv rctrclcred for dclal' submission of appc;rl, rt is contcntled that duc to ailmcnt thc appcllant rvzrs nr)l in position to appctlr bclorc Court. Thcrc is mcdical appended s,hich at vcry outsct is not endorsed as valicl for Court. Perusal of the same shows that it docs not , ciepict such a medical ailment which rvould cnai;lt,: Court lo understand that physical restraint u'as placccl upon the appellant virtue such ailment. The mcdical documents shorv certain medication pcrtaining l"o gastric elements and fewer blood re ports but no specification is available rvhich would shorv lhat ailment was of such degree that movement o[ thc appellant gol restricted. The appeal is to be manifestecl rvithin 30 days of the Judgment & Decree in terms oi Rule 22 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 and il filed with delay then under the larr errclt and every day has to be explained. If is observed that no specification otherwise is provided by the appeilanr qua for ailment or even about its nature and diagnosis. The limitation is a living law and the question oi limitation being not a mere technicality cor-rid rrot bt: taken lightlv and rights accrued to other part_v due tcr limitalion could not be snatched it\\'ay* rvithor-rt sufficient cause and lawlul .iurisdiction, IEjll:_lgsn held in 2O23 SCMR 291 rvherein August Slrprcrnc Court ol Pakistan has hcld that "Iaru of limitation reduces an effect of extbrgulshment of a right of a partg when slgn{lcant lcrpses occur - When no sufflclent cause .,for srrch laps, delag or tlme barrccl actlon ls shourn by tIrc defaultlng partU, the opposite pqrty ls entltled to a rlglrt o,ccnted by srrch lcpses--- Ornlsslon ancl negllgence of not fillng the proceedings wltlin the prescrlbe llmltadon perl,od creates a right t"PY9W'"' Itl the aPPlication nnder-scclidn 05 o-IllilTiffiIion Acr, 190g hirs bccn filed by the appcllitnt ancl no explanation has bce n to iustiiy the clclay irr liling of appeal. 'l.hc gror_rncl ol medical ailment is vcn/ generalize<i grouncl rvithour specilication thercto. Rather rvhen the Juclgment \\rus passed, both sidcs u,crc available anci in thcir prese Judgment was pronounccd and no reasonablcncc or sufficient cause is shorvn which ,uorta move Courl to condone the delay in prelerring the ---- appeut -'l whether bc it for a day or weeks.,, t

3.Llcncc thc petitioncr Mariam Butt has filecl the instiint petition agaitrst the aforesaicl orcler and ordcr in appeal.

I lrirr,t'l:t'itt'tl lltt'lt'rrt'ttt'rl lottttst:l for l.ltc llartir:s its rtr''ll;rs Addl Arlvrrcrrtt'(it'ttt't'itl Sirrtllr itttrl t'ottsirlr:rcrl thr: rr:r:orrl.

5.lt is n'cll setllerl lx"inciph of lurv thnt this Court {:etnnrtt go ittto tlrt' issrtc ol ltutittlctrilttt:c irtttl rccovcry of clowry ;trticIt:s ir:; this is rr firctr.rll issrrt: rvlriclr is rlccirlcrl by thc Irial Court itltr:r lcirrlirrll t'r'ii.lt'trt'c rvhit'lr \\'irs rlt'rlttr itr tltt: c.lsc itttrl thcn mirktrs it tlt'tcrnrirrrtiorr l:asetl on that cvitlence . I clo not find erny rrr.rn- rcirclirrg or rllisrcil(ling of tlre cviclence in orcler datecl 30.oi.2O2?' In fan:il1'nlattcrs undcr [he Wcsl Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 only otre right of appeal is provided and it has been held that no further proccedings in the Constitutional Jurisdiction could takt: place unless exceptional circumstances exist. In this case no exceptions circumstances exist. As mentioned above this Court cannot go into the factual determination which should or should not have been given which rvas the obligation of concerned trial Court. In this respect reliance is placed in the cases of Arif Fareed v Bibi Sara (2023 SCMR 413), M. Hamad Hassan v Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434) and the judgment passed in Civil petition No.473-l( of 2024 re: Syed Raheel Ahmed v Mst. syeda zona Naqvi by the supreme court of Pakistan (Approved I'or reporting) dated 26.07.2024.

6.Even otherwise it is noted that the order in appeal dated O}.A8.2O23 was dismissed on account of the appeal being time barred by 16 days. The learned Appellant Court has considered the explanation given by the Appellant for filing an appeal trfter sttch a clelay ancl aftcr a careful analysis rvhich tras been reproclucccl earlier in this or<Jer lras come to the conclusion that despitc medical evidence being proviclecl thcrc rvas no adeqttate reasoll ) why the appcal was ltot filed $'ithitr time but rt'itlr a cleltr5'oi 16 days.

7.Keeping in vierv the abovc, the instant petition is herebi' dismissed.

:\,A.{

.IUDd.6 ,l,ily