' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26-5-2012 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Multan, and the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, recovery of dowry articles, recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of gold ornaments against the petitioner. The petitioner being the defendant filed a contesting written statement and upon divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance allowance, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff was given dowry articles as detained in the plaint and it was still in defendant possession? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff's 8 Tola golden ornaments were outstanding? OPP
(7) Relief.
3. The learned trial Court after giving its elaborate findings on all the issues granted the following relief through judgment and decree dated 26-5-2012:--- "In the light of above said discussion, suit for plaintiffs is partially decreed against the defendant with the observation that plaintiff is entitled to recover dowry articles mentioned in the list Exh.P-5 except golden ornaments mentioned at serial Nos.1 to 13 or in lieu of their price Rs.3,50,000. The suit of the plaintiff to the extent of maintenance allowance and gold ornaments weighing 8 tolas is hereby dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that marriage of the parties has already been dissolved vide order dated 26-3-2010 and consequently plaintiff has to restore the dower. Decree sheet be drawn. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion."
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-5-2012 the petitioner and respondent No.3 filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, and through a consolidated judgment and decree dated 31-3-2014 the appeals filed by respondent No.3 as well as by the petitioner were dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgments and decrees dated 26- 5-2012 and 31-3-2014 passed by both the Courts below are illegal and against law and facts. It is further argued that both the Courts below have erred in law while passing the impugned judgments and decrees to the extent of grant of dowry articles to the tune of Rs.3,50,000 is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It is a settled principle of law that purpose of enacting the special law regarding the family disputes is to advance justice and to avoid technicalities which are hindrance in providing ultimate justice to the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriages and other family affairs and special procedure was provided to achieve this object and therefore, the legislature, in its wisdom, excluded the application of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is reproduced below:--- "17. Provisions of Evidence Act and Code of Civil Procedure not to apply.--- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (P.O. No.10 of 1984)] and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [except sections 10 and 11] shall not apply to proceedings before any Family Court, [in respect of part I of Schedule]
(2) Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1873, shall apply to all proceedings before the Family Courts."
8. The purpose of enacting Family Courts Act, 1964 is to frustrate the technicalities for the purpose of justice between the parties in the shortest possible manner. All that the Family Courts Act, 1964 has done is that it has changed the forum, altered the method of trial and empowered the Court to grant better reliefs. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are not applicable in stricto sensu to proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of section 17 of the Act, 1964. Family Court has to regulate its own proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1964; and in doing so it has to proceed on the premises that every procedure is permissible unless a clear prohibition is found in law. Therefore, a mere fact that a party did not formally prove a document is of no legal consequence.
It is observed that the evidence adduced before the Family Court cannot be evaluated and appraised in a manner as it is appreciated in the I cases presented under Civil Procedure Code.
9. Respondent No.3 had produced her list of dowry articles as Exh. P-5 which has been rightly relied upon by the learned' Judge Family Court while excluding the gold ornaments mentioned at serial Nos.1 to 13 in the list of dowry articles (Exh.P-5). It has been held in Mst. Shakeela Bibi v. Muhammad Israr and others (2012 M LD 756) that the solitary statement of wife is sufficient to prove the claim of dowry articles. It was further held that this notion is misconceived that the wife while making the claim for dowry articles was required to prove the case in terms of requirements of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is a special law and provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 have been excluded through section 17 of the Act, 1964.
10. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner therefore, this Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
It is settled proposition of law that extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked unless the order of subordinate Court was illegal, perverse or defective in terms of exercise of jurisdiction. Fact that through an evidence one could reach to a different conclusion was no 'ground for invocation of extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
11. Before parting with this order, it is observed that even the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, was barred by time as the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court dated 26-5-2012 filed appeal on 3-1-2013.
Rule 22 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, provides that an appeal under section 14 of the Act, 1964 shall be preferred within 30 days of the passing of the decree or a decision excluding the time required for obtaining the certified copies. Although it is provided in proviso to Rule 22 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 that the Appellate court may for sufficient cause extend the period. But there is nothing on record to suggest that any application was filed along with appeal for an extension of time nor any such ground has been taken in the memo. Of appeal as well as in the grounds of the instant petition.
12. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is II dismissed.