Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2012 C.L.R. 1470

Mian Shoaib Akram vs Judge, Family Court, etc.

Citation2012 C.L.R. 1470
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 9621 of 2012
Date2012-04-17
Judge(s)Shahid Waheed
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

SHAHID WAHEED, J. --- Petitioner, Mian Shoaib Akram, through this Constitutional petition has called in question the validity and legality of an interim order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family. Court, Lahore, whereby interim maintenance allowance of the minor respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has been fixed in a suit instituted by respondent No. 2 for recovery of maintenance, dowry articles and dissolution of marriage.

2. Without touching merit of the case it is suffice to say that a Constitutional petition does not lie against an interim order as under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 no appeal or revision is competent against an interim order passed by a Family Court. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order then the same cannot be challenged by way of a Constitutional petition as allowing such an order to be impugned by way of a Constitutional petition would . Amount to negating the provisions of the statute which does not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order. According to the principles of interpretation of statute the Court would not act in a manner by which the object of a statute is defeated and the same is rendered nugatory. In the case of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi v.

Province of Sindh and another reported in 1996 SCM R 1165, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order the same cannot also be . Challenged by way of a Constitutional petition as Constitutional petition would amount to defeating the object of the statute. A similar pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad lftikhar Mohmand v. Javed Muhammad and 3 others reported in 1998 SCM R 328. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when no appeal was provided against an interlocutory order then the same could only be challenged in the appeal to be filed against the final order/judgment.

3. In view of above, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. .

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch