' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--This petition has been filed against order, dated 18-12-2008, passed by VIIth Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (Malir) in Family Suit No,47 of 2006, whereby, the application for additional issues on behalf of the petitioner/husband was refused on the ground that the issues are in respect to the return of some jewelry items from bride to-bride groom, which does not fall within the meaning of Schedule of the Family Court and secondly Civil Procedure Code does not apply.
2. Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application for amendment of the issues was made on 5-4-2008, was heard on 30-5-2008 and order was passed on 18-12- 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the issues in respect to return of jewelry items of the Bride Groom are of the value, which exceeds Rs,5,000, hence they do not fall within the meaning of gifts under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, nor, keeping in view their value, they can be considered as bridal gifts and are to be returned. Learned counsel has further pointed out PLD 2007 Kar. 344 and argued that the Family Court has power to amend the issues, which are necessary to do the justice between the parties, keeping in view their entire claim. Lie has further referred para.15 of the written statement, wherein, six gold items have been mentioned, which allegedly were given by the petitioner to respondent No,2. He submits that in respect of that an issue was necessary would have been framed but that was not framed, hence the order is contrary to the contest put forward by the parties.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Iqbal Haider, learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that it is the very scheme of the Family Law that the family matters to be decided expeditiously. He fully supported order of the lower Court and states that order is fit and proper. He acknowledges that there is a delay in hearing and disposal of the application of the petitioner but that was due to fact that learned Presiding Officer was herself on maternity leave. He submits that the application for additional issues is an afterthought and with mala fide intention as the suit was filed in the year 2006 while examination-in-chief of the respondent No,2 was recorded on 26-3-2008 while the application for additional issues was moved on 5th April, 2008. He has pointed section 11 of the Family Courts Act and submitted that after framing of the issues, the Court has to issue the notice to the witnesses keeping in view the contest, therefore, when this has been done and examination- inchief has already been recorded then the petitioner has tried to put the cart before the horse. He has further submitted that even if the issues are taken into consideration then their adjudication do not fall within the meaning of schedule (Part-I) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Lahore 410.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, it appears that the scheme of earlier disposal of family suit, within a period of six months, has been provided by virtue of section 12-A of the Family Courts Act and section 11 has prescribed procedure for recording of evidence. Section 11(2) reads as follows:--
(11) Recording of evidence.--- (1)
(2) The Court shall not issue any summons for the appearance of any witness unless, within three days of the framing of issues. Any party intimates the Court that it desires a witness to be summoned through the Court and the Court is satisfied that it is not possible for such party to produce the witness.
' The said section shows that the Court has to issue notices to the witnesses as required by the parties within three days from the framing of the issues while here in this case issues were framed on 14-7-2006 and examination-in-chief of the respondent Nos. 2 was recorded on 26-3-2008, hence, the application moved in April, 2008 by the petitioner can be considered as an afterthought.
It is also clear from the Schedule (Part-I) that the claim in respect to the items, which do not fall within the prescribed criteria of the schedule, cannot be agitated. The same schedule is as follows:
(1) Dissolution of marriage.
(2) Dower.
(3) Maintenance.
(4) Restitution of conjugal rights.
(5) Custody of Children.
(6) Guardianship.
(7) [Jactition of marriage] [Amdt. Act XXIV of 1971]
(8) Dowry [Item 8 added by Family Courts (Amdt) Act (VII of 1997]
(9) Personal property and belongings of a wife. [new serial No added by Amdt Ord LV of 2002 dated 1-10-2002].
' The issues which were put forward by the petitioner in his application are as under:--
(i) Whether the defendant is entitled to return of jewelry items from the plaintiff as detailed in the written statement?
(ii) Whether the defendant is entitled to the return of album containing photographs of defendant and his family members from the plaintiff?
5. In the light of above schedule, it can be presumed that a husband cannot put up his claim over items, which do not fall within the meaning of Schedule (ibid) as the Family Court under section 5 has specific jurisdiction in respect to the items provided in schedule (Part-I). The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the items mentioned in para.15 of the written statement are above the value provided under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 and cannot be considered as a gift, therefore, to be returned, cannot be considered by the Family Court as even if they are considered as belonging of the petitioner then the Family Court has no jurisdiction in that account keeping in view the limited jurisdiction provided in Schedule. Moreover, the allegation of the petitioner in respect to its items cannot be ascertained and disposed of by the Family Court in the given circumstances.
6. It will be pertinent to point out that issues were framed in 2006 while application was moved in April, 2008 and order was passed on 18-12-2008 but even thereafter he petitioner continued cross- examination of the respondent No,2. On 21-1-2009 and when the entire case of the respondent has been opened up then on 11-3-2009 petition has been filed which, in the above circumstances, is nothing but to drag on the proceedings.
7. Keeping in view the Schedule of the Act 1964, I am in consonance with PLD 2002 Lahore 410 and observe that petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.