Mian SHOAIB AKRAM vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT and 4 others
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge an interim order dated 21-3-2012 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Lahore, which fixed an interim maintenance allowance for minor respondents in a pending suit for maintenance, dowry articles, and dissolution of marriage. The core legal question was whether an interim order passed by a Family Court, against which no appeal or revision is provided by statute, can be challenged through a constitutional petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that allowing a constitutional petition against an interlocutory order, where the statute explicitly provides no appeal or revision, would defeat the legislative intent and render the statutory provisions nugatory. The key principle laid down is that when a statute does not provide for an appeal or revision against an interlocutory order, such an order cannot be challenged via a constitutional petition; instead, any grievance against such an order must be raised in the appeal filed against the final judgment.
- Can an interim order passed by a Family Court be challenged via a constitutional petition when the statute provides no appeal or revision against such orders?
- Does allowing a constitutional petition against an interlocutory order defeat the object of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- At what stage can an aggrieved party challenge an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court if no appeal or revision is provided by statute?
- Section 14(3), West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
ORDER
' SHAHID WAHEED, J.--- Petitioner, 'Mian Shoaib Akram, through this constitutional petition has called in question the validity and legality of an interim order dated 21-3-2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore, whereby interim maintenance allowance of the minor respondents Nos.3 to 5 has been fixed in a suit instituted by respondent No,2 for very maintenance, dowry articles and dissolution of marriage.
2. Without touching merit of the case it is suffice to say that a constitutional petition does not lie against an interim order as under section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 no appeal or revision is competent against an interim order passed by a Family Court. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order then the same cannot be challenged by way of a constitutional petition as allowing such an order to be impugned by way of a constitutional petition would amount to negating the provisions of the statute which does not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order. According to the principles of interpretation of statute the Court would not act in a manner by which the object of a statute is defeated and the same is rendered nugatory. In the case of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi v.
Province of Sindh and another reported in 1996 SCM R 1165, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order the same cannot also be challenged by way of a constitutional petition as constitutional petition would amount to defeating the object of the statute. A similar pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Iftikhar Muhammad v. Javed Muhammad and 3 others reported in 1998 SCM R 328. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when no appeal was provided against an D interlocutory order then the same could only be challenged in the appeal to be filed against the final order/judgment.
3. In view of above, this petition being 'not maintainable is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. ERAM RAZA and 2 others vs Syed MUTAQI MUHAMMAD ALI and another 2018 MLD 727
- IMTIAZ AHMAD ABBASI vs NOSHEEN AKHTAR and another 2017 YLR 2144, 2017 PLJ AJ&K 254
- IMTIAZ AHMED ABBASI vs NOSHEEN AKHTAR and another 2017 YLR 2144