Mst. BUSHRA RAHEEL vs SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN and 2 others
The petitioner, a wife involved in multiple family law proceedings, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the transfer and consolidation of various suits pending between her and her husband. The husband had initiated proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights and custody of minor children in Peshawar, while the petitioner had filed suits for the dissolution of marriage and dower in Lahore. The petitioner argued that prosecuting cases in Peshawar posed a threat to her life and caused inconvenience, requesting the Court to exercise its powers under Article 186-A of the Constitution to transfer and consolidate these cases to a single forum to avoid conflicting judgments. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 186-A, noting it was introduced to allow the transfer of cases pending before one High Court to another. The Court held that it could not interpret the expression "pending before" to include cases pending within the jurisdiction of lower courts without violating the legislative intent and the federal scheme. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
- Does Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower the Supreme Court to transfer cases pending before lower courts or family courts?
- Can the expression 'pending before' in Article 186-A of the Constitution be interpreted to mean cases pending within the jurisdiction of a High Court?
- Is the Supreme Court authorized to consolidate family law suits pending in different provinces under its constitutional transfer powers?
- Article 184(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 186-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 187(1), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXXIII Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order XXXIII Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order 1985
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 186-A, 187(1) and 184(3) of the Constitution read with Order XXXIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for seeking relief from this Court.
2. The factual background prompting this petition is that the husband of the petitioner i,e., respondent No, 1 instituted on 2-1-1993 at Peshawar a claim for restitution of conjugal rights against her. On 15-2-1993 he filed another claim before the Judge, Family Court Peshawar seeking custody of the minor children. The petitioner instituted a suit in the Family Court at Lahore on 21-3-1993 claiming dissolution of her marriage. She instituted another suit on the same date in the Family Court, Lahore claiming dower.
3. The petitioner has apart from inconvenience pleaded a threat to her life if she goes and prosecutes the cases at Peshawar. She, therefore, sought the consolidation and the transfer of all the suits in one Court so that the conflict of judgment does ndt take place and the parties get a comprehensive judgment from one Court on all the issues which have to be resolved in these pending matters,
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is aware of the limitations which are Constitutional in nature and have been considered in decisions of this Court in Raja Humayun Khan v. Habib Bank Ltd. (1986 SCMR 78(2)), Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Nathey Khan (1987 SCMR 1934) and Rashad Iqbal v.
Mst. Muniza Begum (PLD 1987 Lahore 331). All the same, the learned counsel wants that this Court should have a second look at the issues arising in the case and should give a purposive interpretation and an extended meaning to Article 186-A of the Constitution read with the other provisions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules referred to by him with a view to afford a necessary relief to parties so affected. He has for such a progressive, purposive and remedial interpretation referred to Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others (PLD 1961 SC 119), Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 241), Mst Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 661), Mastak v. Lal and Others (PLD 1991 SC 344) and Hasham Khan v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 567). He has also referred to a learned discourse printed in PLD 1991 Jour.
6.
5. Our Constitution embodies and gives effect to a scheme of a Federation. Earlier there was no provision comparable to Article 186-A of the Constitution. This provision was introduced for the first time by the Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985 (President's Order 14 of 1985). This Article empowers and enables the Supreme Court to transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. It is not possible to give to the expression "pending before" the meaning of "pending within the jurisdiction of, without violence to the intention of the law-maker, to the language of the law and the scheme of Federation.
6. No case is made out. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine.