SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J. -ln the present writ petition, an order of the Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi, dated 27.11.2004 has. Been impugned whereby respondent No. 2 was allowed to bring 'on record the decision of revision by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had not mentioned the said document in her list of reliance as it is required under Section 7 sub-section (3-ii), Family Courts Ordinance. He further contends-that earlier that request of respondent No. 2 was turned down by respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not competent to grant the same subsequently. According to him, the impugned order is clearly violative of mandatory provisions of Section 7 sub-section (3-ii) of the Family: Courts Ordinance, therefore, liable to be set aside.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Submits that suit for dissolution was filed by respondent No. 2 on 9.9.2003. Whereas, the private complaint was filed in December, 2003, against which a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 29.5.2004. He elaborated that the said document was not available to him as the suit was filed much earlier i.e. On 9.9.2003. For the same, he could not have referred the same at the time of filing dissolution suit. He further contends that it is not correct that respondent No.1 refused to grant permission to place on ^record the document earlier. He referred to the statement of QW-3 wherein DW-3 referred the above document during her cross-examination which was objected on the ground that' the same could not be referred during the cross- examination. The learned counsel submits that in view of the above objection, a proper application was filed before respondent No. 1. On which the impugned order has been passed which is a valid and well reasoned order and should not be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of Section 7 sub- section (3-ii) of the Family Courts Act which. Reads as under:--
(ii) Where he relies (underline is mine) on any, other document not in his possession or power, as evidence in support of his claim, he shall, enter such documents in a list to be appended to the plaint (giving reasons of relevancy of these documents to the claim in the plaint).
Tha pivotal word is "relies". One can rely on a document; a paper or thing which exists. The document in dispute certainly did not exist even not conceived at the time of filing of dissolution suit by respondent No'. 2, therefore, how could she or her counsel rely on the same at that time? As mentioned above, the suit for dissolution was filed before the Family Judge, Rawalpindi on 9.9.2003, the decision in the criminal revision was given by the learned. Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 29.5.2004.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, Section 7 sub-section (3-ii) of Family Courts Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case pending ^before the learned Family Judge Rawalpindi.
4 ln view of the above discussion, I hold that this. Writ petition is devoid of any convincing ground/reason, hence dismissed.