' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant constitutional petition assailed order, dated 7-10-2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sheikhupura, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby on account of non-filing of written statement by the petitioner his this right was closed and case was taken up for ex parte proof by respondent No,1.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondent No,1 was married with the petitioner but relations between the spouses did not remain cordial and ultimately resulted in separation. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of her dowry articles and maintenance allowance. Petitioner being defendant in the suit, in response to notice by the learned Judge Family Court, appeared where he was required to file written statement. On 7-10-2003 petitioner in spite of availing repeated opportunities, failed to file the written statement which led, to punitive action through impugned order. Petitioner being aggrieved of closure of his right to file written statement, filed instant constitutional petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record has now been placed for final hearing. Respondent No,1 avoided service of notice issued by the office of this Court, whereupon citation in daily Urdu newspaper "Nawa-e-Waqt" was published, carrying notice for appearance of respondent No,1 but she did not appear. Second citation in daily Urdu newspaper "Pakistan" was ordered to be published for her appearance and on her failure, she was proceeded against ex parte, vide order, dated 28-6-2006.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Record revealed that on 17-9-2003 petitioner appeared in person before the learned Judge Family Court, whereupon case was adjourned to 18-9-2003 for filing of written statement, which was not filed and thereafter petitioner was granted a final opportunity for filing the written statement on 27-9-2003. On the next date of hearing i,e, 3-10-2003 some counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney, whereupon case was adjourned to 7-10- 2003 for filing of written statement. This is the date on which punitive action of striking of right to file written statement was ordered. All this exercise was done within a period of twenty days. No doubt the suit filed by respondent No,1 was a family suit and required expeditious disposal but petitioner/defendant should have been given fair opportunity of defending the same by filing his written statement, which was not provided in the case in hand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgments in the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Mst.
Zubaida and another 1990 ALD 180, Maqsood Ahmad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala and 5 others 2001 CLC 567 and Muhammad Ashraf v. Nasreen Begum through legal heirs and 3 others PLD 1989 Lah. 69 to contend that in absence of any provision for taking punitive action of striking of right to file written statement in the Family Courts Act, 1964 or Rules framed thereunder, the impugned order is not sustainable at law, especially when section 17 of the Act (ibid) expressly excluded applicability of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, appeared to have some worth but a Judge Family Court while trying any suit mentioned in schedule of Family Courts Act, 1964 has to adopt procedure of his choice as this enactment is not exhaustive and does not make provision for every conceivable eventuality and unforeseen circumstances/situations. Judgments in support of this proposition, are in the cases of Khalilur Rehman Bhutta v. Razia Naz and another 1984 CLC 890 and Shahzada Jawaid v. Mst. Sadia Rauf and another 2000 MLD 1301.
5. Now if we follow the view taken in the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the result would be that learned Family Judges shall be denuded of jurisdiction to take any punitive action against the defaulting defendants, in spite there prolonged/consistent defaults and the suit will not proceed till infinity but this interpretation being opposed to the purposes of the Family Courts Act, 1964, cannot be contributed. Preamble of the Act of 1964 reads as under:-- "Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the establishment of Family Courts for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for the matters connected therewith;"
' Now keeping in mind the Preamble of the Act, if the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are examined and followed, the result would be contrary to purposes of the legislation but this interpretation cannot be given effect. Strict applicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the proceedings before a Family Court can be urged but adoption of general principles of procedure by the Presiding Officer of such Court being a Rule of law, cannot be prohibited to advance the due administration of justice.
6. In the case in hand, learned Judge Family Court having opted to follow the Procedure prescribed for trial of civil suits, committed no error of law but this Procedure as well limited period for filing of written statement to one month as per proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII. Since respondent No,2 exhibited unnecessary haste at the cost of dispensation of justice by passing impugned order within a span of twenty days only, the same- deserved to be reversed being tainted with patent illegalities. It goes without remarking that another opportunity for filing the written statement would not only have served the ends of justice but would have also completed the period of one month, as noted above, but this course was not adopted.
7. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is bound to succeed and is accordingly accepted and impugned order dated 7-10-2003 is declared to be void and of no legal consequence with the result that petitioner is granted one single final opportunity of filing his written statement on a date to be fixed by the learned Judge Family Court (respondent No,2) subject to payment of costs of Rs,5,000 to respondent No,1 who unnecessarily suffered on account of lapse of the petitioner for a period of four years. In case of failure of the petitioner to file written statement on the date so fixed by the trial Court, order, dated 7-10-2003 shall stand revived. There will be no order as to costs as far as instant proceedings are concerned.