Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3103 1970 SLD 3103 = 1970 PLD 293
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Second Appeal No. 334 of 1969, decided on 18th August 1969.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J
Asad All Bilgrami for Appellant.

ABDUL HAKEEM-Appellant

VERSUS

Mst. ABIDA BEGUM-Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 14(1)

West-Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXP of 1964), S. 14(1) No provision in section for second appeal. The words "decision" and "decree" used in the subsection (1) of section 14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, refer to the original decision or decree given by a Court of first instance and not by an appellate Court. The purpose of the statute is to shorten the proceedings ; therefore, no second appeal or revision has been provided. It is true that the decision given by a Family Court may be given after trying the suit as a Court of first instance or after hearing it in appeal as an Appellate Court, but subsection (1) of section 14 deals with first appeals only. According to it there is an appeal from a decision or decree given by a Family Court to the District Judge but when the Family Court is presided over by a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or an officer of equal rank then it is to be heard by the High Court. It will not be correct to interpret subsection (1) of section 14 in such a manner as to provide first appeals as well as second appeals at random, without the use of such language as to distinguish between the two. One anomaly which will arise from interpreting clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 14 to include second appeals will be that there will be two appeals in those cases which may be decided by Family Courts presided over by other officers than District Judges or Additional District Judges and other officers of that rank and only one appeal from those Family Courts which will be presided over by District Judges, Additional District Judges and Officers of that rank.   ORDER This is a Second Appeal from the appellate Order of the Additional District Judge, Karachi , dated the 17th of January 1969, by which he dismissed the First Appeal of the present appellant. The office has raised two objections. One of them is that proper court-fee was not paid and the other is that this appeal is not maintainable. In reply to the first objection, counsel says that he has made up the deficiency in the court-fee. 2. The second objection is not accepted as correct by counsel. He relies on subsection (1) of section 14 of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register