' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The petitioner was married with respondent No,1 about 13 years ago, of the wedlock, three sons and a daughter were born. The spouses lived happily for a short while, thereafter the petitioner started suspecting the character of the respondent No,1, and thus, harmony vanished. The respondent No,1 filed suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner made efforts to revive the union and filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Unfortunately, both suits were tried by separate Courts and were never consolidated. The Family Court trying the suit for dissolution of marriage, made efforts for reconciliation but upon failure, exercising powers under proviso to section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, dissolved the marriage. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.
2.' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed on 20-1-2007. But the other Family Court also decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, thus, there is conflict of judgments, in this scenario, the Family Court was obliged to frame issues, according to the pleadings of the parties and determine effect of subsequent decree. He relied on Anwari Begum alias Khalida Anwar v. Additional District Judge Lyallpur and others 1988 CLC 1641.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment.
4. The impugned judgment reflects that the defendant/petitioner was summoned in the Court, he duly appeared, filed written statement, whereafter the proceedings were fixed for pre-trial reconciliation. Upon failure, the suit was decreed, in view of proviso to section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The proviso to section 10(4) (ibid) is unambiguous and clear, it has an overriding effect and stated that no decision or judgment of any Court or Tribunal, shall be an impediment, in this context, therefore, the right granted for dissolution of marriage is absolute and contingent only, upon restoration of Haq Mehr, to the husband and nothing else. Therefore, the Family Court rightly dissolved the marriage, after restoring Haq Mehr to husband. The decree for dissolution of marriage is earlier in time (20-1-2007), therefore, the petitioner was bound to disclose this to the Family Court, trying the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, this was not done, the lapse resulted into passing of decree in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights (31-1-2007) he, therefore, cannot reap benefit of his own fault. Even otherwise, in view of dissolution of marriage, by the Family Court, the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is legally ineffective. The precedent referred to, is inapplicable to the present facts, as the enactment amending proviso to section 10 of the Family Court Act, was incorporated on 1-10-2002, while the precedent referred to relates to 1981, (when enactment was not in field). Therefore, this petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine.