1. This Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner Muhammad Anwar Ansari on 28-5- 2007, impugning the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Nazia Shamim had filed Family Suit No, 1042 of 2004 against the petitioner on 15-9-2004 for recovery of her dowry articles. She was married with the petitioner at Karachi on 7-11-1998 against the dower amount of Rs, 25,000 and from this wedlock one child namely Master Usama was born on 20-12-1999, who is presently with Respondent No,
1. The marriage was dissolved between the parties by way of divorce, which was confirmed by the Nazim of UC-9, North Nazimabad, Karachi. Respondent No, 1 had filed Family Suit No, 1042 of 2004 for recovery of her dowry articles. This suit was decided and decreed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Karachi Central by judgment and decree dated 18-3-2005. The petitioner had preferred appeal against this judgment viz. Family Appeal No, 26 of 2005. The learned V-Additional District Judge, Karachi Central was pleased to dismiss the appeal as the same was time-barred by five months.
3. The operative portion of the order of learned V-Additional District Judge, Karachi Central is reproduced hereunder:-- "I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record and proceedings with care. On perusal of record it indicates that prior to 29.7.2006 instant appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28-1-2006 however, same was restored with the consent of respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that in instant application the appellant has taken plea that due to serious ailment of his mother he could not pursue instant appeal however, in his application he has not given specific date of ailment of his mother or specific date of admission of his mother in hospital. Contrary to the above he appended order dated 8.1.2007 passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice S. Zawwar Hussain Jaffery (as the then he was) in C.P. No, S- 512/2006 which reveals that the appellant presented C.P. before the Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi on 30-11-2006 whereas certificate which was submitted by the appellant was suffered from severe back ache and she was under treatment from 5.7.2006 to 7-1-2007 and she was advised strict bed rest. It is pertinent to mention here that certificate which was being produced at later stage did not indicate that there was any serious illness which constrained the appellant not to approach the Court of law to pursue his case before any Court of law. Besides above the filing of petition before Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 30-6-2006 itself negates the contention of appellant that he was remained with his mother or she was admitted in hospital for her treatment. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant filed instant application on 24-1-2007 where are the instant appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 29-7- 2006 and he filed application after lapse of more than 5 months and he has failed to disclose any plausible reasons for such delay. Therefore under such circumstances instant application is misconceived hence dismissed having no force."
4. This matter is pending in High Court since 28-5-2007. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present today. It appears that the petitioner is not serious in pursuing the matter.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 .Mr. Moho-mod Hassan and have perused the record. This constitutional petition is in a case of recovery of dowry articles after the divorce between the spouses. Proceedings were initiated by the wife in the year 2004. I am of considered opinion that cases pertaining to the maintenance of children, Khula/divorce as well as return of dowry articles should be tried and decided on priority basis. If possible, the trial Court should fix these cases every week and should see that on each date of hearing some progress is made in the case and in case progress is not made, the party who created hurdles in progress of the matter should be asked to pay the costs, for that particular day for delaying the matter. In our society, there are certain persons, who make the lives of their ex-wives and children miserable by showing arrogance and indifferent behavior towards them. These people when sit in their private gatherings, they express their sentiments by uttering tall words meaning thereby that they are above the law and they will ruin the lives of their ex-wives and will teach lesson to their ex-in-laws. The learned Judges of trial Court should be vigilant about such arrogant and ruthless persons, who are trying to make their wives ruin in the Court even five years after the divorce just to collect their own dowry articles, which their parents had given to them from their hard-earned money. In spite of the fact that amendment in Family Courts Act has been made in the year, 2002, which bound the Courts to dispose of such matters within six months, the Courts below have not taken any serious steps to follow the law in respect of expeditious disposal of family cases. I take serious view of delay caused in disposal of family cases and express my displeasure on it. While parting with this order I feel it my duty to record my observation that after passing of the final judgments in the cases and expiry of appeal period, considerable time is consumed in execution of the Court orders. I hereby direct to all the trial Courts that all execution proceeding in family matters should be fixed by Family Courts on weekly basis and Courts should try to dispose of execution proceedings within one month from the date of filing of the same unless there are some exceptional circumstances causing delay in disposal of the execution.
6. With the above observation this Constitutional Petition having no merits is dismissed.