1. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an appeal is competent before the High Court against certain specified orders of the Family Court and since the impugned order is not one of those which fall under the category of appealable orders the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The question which falls for determination is whether Family Court, created under the Family Courts Ordinance of 1964 can be considered to be a Court subordinate to the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. In this connection learned counsel has drawn my attention to Anil Das. v. Mustaque Ahmad (1) in which the provisions of East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (1 of 1964) were taken into consideration and it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the orders of District Judge in exercise of its powers under section 115, C.P.C. The provisions of law in East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (1 of 1964) cannot be said to be analogous to the provisions of Family Courts Act of 1964. Under section 17 of this Act the Legislature has specifically excluded the application of Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code. It is, therefore, obvious that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the C.P.C. Cannot be exercised in view of the express bar created by section 17 of the Act of 1964. The family Court is merely a persona designata and not a Court subordinate to the High Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(1) PLD 1967 Dacca 521