Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 5--Application for rejection of plaint to extant of recovery of Rs. 70,000/- Dismissed--Personal property--Question of--Whether or not said amount can be treated as personal property of wife--Determination--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--Trial Court has reached conclusion on application filed by petitioner that cash Rs.70,000/- is presumed as personal property of wife and family Court has jurisdiction to entertain matter relating to same including recovery of cash--Where appeal is not maintainable, constitutional petition cannot be used as its substitute especially where no final challengeable order requiring determination has yet been passed--Besides it is a settled principle of law that a plaint cannot be rejected or returned in piecemeal when some dispute required to be determined by Court still subsists and it could be rejected only if all reliefs claimed were barred under law--Petitioner seeks piecemeal rejection of plaint whereas it is not disputed that Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide remaining claim and on basis of principles laid down in afore referred s, it is not advisable to reject plaint at this state--Petition was dismissed. 2017 YLR 1217 & 2003 YLR 943, ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE---.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 6.11.2018 passed by Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 ("Act") for rejection of plaint to the extent of recovery of Rs.70,000/- has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per preamble, Section 5 of the Act and Schedule-I attached with the Act, the family Court being a special Court of limited jurisdiction cannot entertain claim to the extent of recovery of Rs.70,000/- filed by Respondent No.2 ("respondent") against the petitioner and the jurisdiction for the said purpose vests with the civil court. 3. Conversely, the learned Law Offices as well as Amici Curiae have argued that as nothing has been finally decided, therefore, this…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492