On an application filed by respondent No.2 under section 6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 seeking permission for contracting second marriage, the respondent No.1 after completion of procedural requirements accorded the said permission vide order dated 13-5-2005. The petitioner lady instead of filing revision against the said order in terms of section 6(4) of the said Ordinance opted to challenge the above-mentioned order directly before this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner when asked as to how this petition was maintainable in the presence of alternate remedy by way of filing revision against the said order in terms of Article 199(1) of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the impugned order was basically a void order and the remedy of revision being not adequate, hence this petition was maintainable.
3. Heard.
4. I am not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel. The order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be termed as void order and further the remedy provided against the said order in the form of revision petition before the concerned Collector (D.O.R.) is also quite an adequate remedy and that the order passed in such revision is final and cannot be called in question in any Court in terms of section 6(4) of the Muslims Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others"
(PLD 1996 Supreme Court 246) while deprecating the filing Constitutional petitions instead of filing appeal, observed:-- "If litigant public was permitted to take all sorts of disputes to High Court without first availing of other remedies available to them under law that would not only unnecessarily increase work load of High Court but would also defeat provisions of law by which said remedies had been made available. Such spree on part of litigant public, would amount to abuse of Constitutional jurisdiction which should be exercised by High Courts in exceptional cases to provide justice which could not otherwise be obtained by aggrieved parties.
Respectfully following the above-mentioned dictum of the fron'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which is binding on all Courts of Pakistan per force of Article 189 of the Constitution, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the same is barred in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the same is therefore, dismissed in limine.