Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5, Schedule,S.11

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched. & S. 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Proceedings before Family Court---Recording of evidence---Cross- examination of witnesses---Petitioner had challenged the validity of order passed by the Family Court, whereby the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness of the respondent was closed---Impugned order had clearly shown that earlier at two occasions proceedings were adjourned for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent with a caution that last opportunity was being granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses---Petitioner appeared to be reluctant to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses produced by the respondent with a view to tease her and to prolong the matter--Impugned order passed by the Family Court was not only clothed with authority, but was also fully justified---Impugned order to all intents and purposes was interlocutory in nature---Law did not provide any appeal or revision in the hierarchy of Family Laws---Petitioner on proper showings would have an opportunity to challenge the same, if and when he would bring an appeal against the final decision/ in terms of S.14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Petitioner would have an adequate and alternative remedy at the time of appeal---Considering the conduct of the petitioner, Family Court was constrained to pass impugned order--In absence of any illegality or irregularity in passing impugned orders, constitutional petition against said orders was dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Khalil Ahmad writ petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 16-1-2009, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad whereby the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 Mst. Naila Majeed was closed. 2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was too harsh; that on 12-1-2009, the Reader of the Court had told the next date as 26-1-2009 but that actually it was 16-1-2009; that the omission to record correct date was only a lapse condonable; that valuable…

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