Abid Vs Mst. Reema Begum and others

I

JUDGMENT SHEET

(Judicial Deparfrnent)

W.P. No.317-Bl2024 with C.M.No.313-B/2025.

Abid

Versus

Mst. Reema Begum and others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 22.9.2025.

For petitioner: Sardar Naeem Khan, Advocate. For respondents: IWs Muhammad Riaz and Rati Ullah Khan, Advocates for respondents No.l to 3.

,4 *:f**

MUHAMITIAD TARIO AFRIDL f,- The petitioner, Abid, has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the consolidated judgment and decree dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Bannu. Through the impugned judgment, the petitioner's appeat bearing FCA No.2612024, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21,.02.2024 of the learned senior civit JudgelFamily court, Bannu, was partially attowed by directing deduction of Rs.80,000/- from the decretal amount of past maintenance. Simultaneously, the appeal filed by the respondents bearing FCA No.3412024 was atso partially allowed, whereby the petitioner was directed to rehabititate his wife and children by providing

V

them a respectable residence equipped with essential facilities of life.

2.The brief factual background is that respondents No.l to 3, namely Mst. Reema Begum (wife), Mst. Ayesha Hoor and Mst. Horaine (minor daughters), instituted a family suit against the petitioner and three others seeking recovery of past maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,0001' per month from September, 2020, and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,0001- per month for each respondent. They further prayed for a decree of rehabilitation in the e petitioner's house.

3.The petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement, denying the allegations and raising factual as well as legal objections. The learned Family Court, after framing issues and recording evidence of both parties, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21.02.2024 in the following terms:

a) Decree for recovery of maintenance in favour of plaintiff No.l (wife) against the defendant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from September, 2020 till the date of judgment, ffid for future maintenance at the same rate till the subsistence of the marital tie.

b) Decree for recovery of maintenance in favour of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 (minor daughters) at the rate of Rs.10,0001- each per month from September, 2020 till the date of judgment, and for future maintenance at the same rate till their marriage, with 10% annual increase applicable prospectively on the principal decretal amount.

c) The remaining claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed.

4.Aggrieved by the said decree, both parties preferred appeals before the learned Additional District Judge-II, Bannu. The appeals were disposed of through the consolidated judgment dated 22.04.2024 in the manner already noted. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant constitutional petition.

5.The record reveals that the petitioner, neither in his written statement nor through an independent suit, sought G the rehabititation of his wife and two minor daughters, rather, it was the respondents who, in their suit, prayed for a decree directing their rehabilitation with the petitioner. As the marital tie subsisted and two minor daughters remained with their mother this Court appointed Sardar Naeem Khan, President, and Mr. Ikram Ullah Khan, General Secretary, Peshawar High court, Bannu Bar Association as arbitrators for amicable settlement in the minors' welfare, but the efforts remained unsuccessful. This Court also extended an option to the petitioner to rehabilitate the respondents in his house, but he expressly refused. Accordingly, the matter now requires adjudication on merits.

6.I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7.In the present case, the petitioner was provided frrll before the leamed Family Court and the learned Appellate Court, both of which decreed maintenance and rehabilitation in favour of the respondents in line with law and the financial position ofthe petitioner.

8.The controversy raised in this petition revolves around the conculrent findings of fact recorded by the leamed Family Court and the learned Appellate Court regarding the entitlement of the respondents to maintenance and respectable rehabilitation. It is by now a settled proposition of law that the right of appeal is a statutory creation. The Family Courts Act, 1964 provides only one opportmity of appeal against the decision of the Family Court, and no further appeal lies beyond that stage' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Fareed Vs' Sara Bibi and others (2023 SCMR 413) has categorically held that the legislature intended to place a full stop on family litigation after its decision by the appellate court and that High Courts should not exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 as a substitute for a second appeal or revision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further emphasized that the extaordinary jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked only in exceptional cases involving jurisdictional defects or gross illegality, but not for reappraisal of evidence or substitution of factual findings'

\J

9.Similarly, in the case of M. Hamad Hassan Vs. Mst.

Isma Bukhari and 2 others (2023 SCMR 1434), it was reiterated that Article 199 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to rectiff jurisdictional errors and procedural improprieties to ensure proper adminisftation of justice, but it does not vest the Court with jurisdiction to re-examine or reassess the facts already determined by the Family Court and affirmed in appeal. It was further held that allowing constitutional petitions to be used as a means for re- argument of factual disputes amounts to entertaining a second appeal, which is alien to the scheme of the Family Courts Act,1964.

4 10. It is evident from the record as well as from the conduct of the petitioner, that he has exhibited willful disregard and a categorical refusal to rehabilitate his wife and two minor daughters, thereby demonstrating his indifference to their welfare and disentitling him to any equitable relief from this Court. It is abundantly clear that the petitioner, by invoking the exffaordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, is in fact seeking a re-appraisal of concurrent furdings of fact, which is neither permissibte under Articte 199 of the Constitution nor in line with the tegislative intent behind the Family Courts Act, 1964. The closure of litigation at the appellate stage in family matters is essential for expeditious disposal of disputes and for preventing unnecessary prolongation of family discord.

f

11.For the foregoing reasons' I find no jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned

consolidated judgment and decree, dared 22'04'2024' passed

which by the learned Additional District Judge-II' Bannu' petition is devoid of calls for interference by this Court' This merit and is accordingly dismissed"

w- Announced.

Dt:22.9.2025.

Imrottf

(s.B) Hon'ble Mt. Jistice Muhannad Tafiq Afridi q