Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 17

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section:

Summary Muhammad Iqbal Afzal challenged the order dated 10.06.2026 whereby the Family Court, Lahore closed his right to produce evidence and discarded his affidavit of evidence in a family suit filed by Maria Akram for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, recovery of dowry articles and maintenance. The petitioner claimed that he had not been given sufficient opportunity and that his counsel was unwell; however, the record showed that he had repeatedly been granted opportunities, including a last chance and clear warnings on 20.04.2026, 29.04.2026 and 12.05.2026, while the case had already consumed 107 hearing dates over about seven years and had been handled by 10 Family Judges. The High Court held that the Family Courts Act, 1964 is a special and self-contained law designed for speedy disposal of family disputes, and Sections 7–12 and 12-A prescribe an expedited procedure and six-month timeline. Section 17 excludes the CPC and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, except Sections 10 and 11 CPC, so parties cannot use ordinary civil procedure to prolong family proceedings. The Court emphasized that fair hearing requires a reasonable opportunity, not unlimited adjournments, and that the Family Court has a duty to actively control proceedings and prevent dilatory tactics. Since the petitioner had already received sufficient opportunities, no interference was warranted. The petition was dismissed, with a direction to the Family Court to conclude the matter day-to-day within 15 days and submit a report. Tagline Fair opportunity in family proceedings does not mean unlimited adjournments; the Family Court must actively control the trial and conclude family disputes within the statutory framework. ORDER; Through this writ petition, the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Afzal has assailed the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by Judge Family Court Lahore, whereby the right to produce evidence has been closed and the affidavit of evidence submitted by the petitioner side, being a defendant in the case, was discarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not given ample opportunity to produce evidence; even warning has not been given, though…