' ZIA PERWEZ, J ---This petition is directed against the order of VIIth Civil & Family Judge, Karachi West, in Family Suit No, 132 of 2004 dated 12-11-2005 confirming the dissolution of marriage on ground of khula after failure of pre-trial proceedings.
2. Brief facts relevant and narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 29-7-2001. After birth Of Master Muzamil Pervaiz on 5-8-2002, relations between the parties became intolerable leading to proceedings to seek Khula by respondent and institution of suit for restitution of conjugal rights bearing F.S. No,132 of 2004 by the petitioner. On failure of pre- trial proceedings on 22-5-2004 an order was passed by the learned Family Judge after taking into consideration the provisions of section 10(4) of the Family Court Act, 1964 as amended.
' It appears that after recording of some evidence a second application was moved seeking dissolution of marriage on failure of the pre-trial proceedings, which was opposed by the petitioner but led to the passing of the impugned order for dissolution of marriage on failure of pretrial proceedings during the pendency of this petitioner, the matter has finally been disposed of vide judgment of learned Family Judge dated 30-3-2007 holding that as the ornaments weighing 5 tolas of gold claimed'to be the dower amount remained in possession of the petitioner. The respondent is not required to return the same at the same time leaving it upon to the petitioner to seek redress, through Civil Court if necessary.
3. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. Contention of Mr. Munir Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the learned Family Court recorded the failure of pre-trial proceedings vide order dated 22-5-2004 that is much after recording of evidence and subsequent proceedings. The learned Family Judge entertained a second application, seeking dissolution of marriage under section 10(4) of the Family Court Act, 1964. He further contended that at the time of passing of the impugned' order, the issue as to the return of dower amount has not been decided. He has placed reliance on the "case of Abdul Sattar. v. Mst. Kalsoom (PLD 2006 Karachi 272). .
4. Mr. Munsif Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the Family Judge was within his rights and exercised powers according to law in allowing the application. In this regard he has placed reliance on the cases of Masood Pervez Sajid v. Mst. Nawasih Fatima & 2 others (2005 MLD 579), Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (NLR 1992 Civil 522), Muhammad Yasin v. Mst.
Rafia Bibi alias 'Rafia Sultana and another (Muhammad Yasin v. Mst. Rafia Bibi alias Rafia Sultana and another PLD 1983 Lah. 377), Manawar Iqbal Satti v. Mst. Uzma Satti and 2 others (2003 YLR 599), Mst. Razia Begum v. Saghir Ahmad (1982 CLC 1586), Mst. Rukhsana Kausar v. Muhammad Abbas (NLR 1992 Civil 233), Karimullah v. Shaban and 2 other (PLD 2003 Peshawar 146), Sarnia Akbar v.
Muhammad Zubair and 2 others (PLD 1990 Lahore 71).
5. Perusal of record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel shows that the Family Court had exercised the jurisdiction vested under the proviso to section 10(4) of the Family Court Act, 1964 by passing order dated 22-5-2004. Thereafter the learned Family Court had no power to review the order. By passing impugned order, the Family Court has exercised the power of review and practically reviewed its owner earlier orders. The Family Court Act 1964 is a special enactment. The power to review an order can only be exercised if specifically conferred under such enactment. The power of review is not available to Family Courts constituted under the Family Courts Act 1964. In view of the principles laid down in the cases of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94) and in the case of Naazreen Akhtar v. Family Judge Lahore and another (PLD 1996 Lahore 394), therefore, the order is patently without A jurisdiction and liable to the set aside.
6. At the same time the case has since been finally decided and all the interim orders have merged in the final judgment, therefore, the effect of setting aside the impugned order will have no bearing on the finding as to Khula in favour of the respondent after passing final judgment in the matter.
Case-law cited by the respective counsel do not specifically deal with this legal aspect, however, in view of the above legal position this petition does not require any further interference with the findings and is disposed of in the above terms.