RASHID TARIQ KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging a decree for dower and maintenance. The petitioner contended that the Family Court failed to comply with Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which mandates an attempt at reconciliation between parties upon the conclusion of evidence. The Family Court had explicitly recorded reasons for dispensing with this requirement, citing the futility of such an attempt given the parties' conduct. The High Court affirmed this decision, noting the petitioner's obstructive behavior throughout the proceedings, including the repeated failure to present arguments despite being granted nine opportunities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal error in the lower courts' refusal to mandate reconciliation when the circumstances rendered it impossible. The Court held that where the conduct of parties demonstrates that reconciliation is futile, the procedural requirement under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 does not necessitate a mechanical or redundant exercise, and the court may proceed to judgment.
- Whether a Family Court is strictly bound to attempt reconciliation under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 even when such an attempt is clearly futile?
- Can a High Court refuse to issue a writ when the petitioner's conduct demonstrates an abuse of process?
- Does the failure to hold a reconciliation meeting under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 automatically vitiate a decree for dower and maintenance?
- Section 12, West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner had challenged a decree passed against him for dower and maintenance in a Writ Petition before the High Court. The only ground urged had been the Family Court's non-compliance of the provision of section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) which required an attempt at reconciliation to be made at the close of the evidence. The Family Court, for reasons recorded, held that there was no need 'for calling the parties for a reconciliation. The High Court also found that in view of the conduct of the petitioner and the behavior of the parties, there existed no possibility of reconciliation. In this connection it noted that as many as nine opportunities had been granted to the petitioner for arguments in the case and that he had shown similar attitude in the connected suit for dissolution of marriage. The High Court, therefore, declined to issue a writ in favour of the petitioner.
2. The same point, that is, the non-compliance of the provision of section 12 has been urged before us. We feel that in the circumstance of the case, the view taken by the High Court cannot be taken exception to. This petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected.