1. MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, J.---Through the above captioned writ petition, filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, following relief has been claimed:-- "It is therefore prayed by accepting the instant writpetition, comparison of the signatures of the respondent No.1 in the marriage certificate dated 07.01.2014 with the signature signed by her in statement recorded before the Honorable Family Judge Dhirkot by the signature expert may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment/order dated 11.06.2016 of Honorable Family Court may kindly be set aside. Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may kindly also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice."
2. 2.Precise facts, necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that during proceedings of jactitation of marriage, before the Court of the learned Family Judge, Dhirkot, the present petitioner filed an application for sending the signatures of the plaintiff/respondent to the writing expert. The learned trial Court, after obtaining objections, heard the learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 11.06.2016 rejected the application. The above order of the trial Court is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.
3. 3.The respondents were summoned for filing comments and the needful has been done on behalf of the respondent No.1, wherein, she has refuted the claim of the petitioner and it has been stated that the alleged Nikahnama, submitted by the petitioner is fictitious and fabricated one, and the same has been challenged before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The other paras of the petition have also been negated by the plaintiff/respondent, herein.
4. 4.The petitioner has appeared before the court in person and he was asked certain queries, which he could not be able to make clear.
5. 5.The learned counsel for the respondent, however, clarified the factual controversy and contended that the petition has been filed against an interlocutory order of the Family Court, which is not maintainable. The learned counsel submitted that the Family Law is a special Law, in which right of appeal against an interim order has not been provided and where a remedy has not been provided by the legislature, the same cannot be granted in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, confronted the petitioner and perused the record, with utmost care.
6. 7.At the very outset of the case, it may be stated that if, the remedy of appeal has not been provided against an interim order of the Family Court, wisdom of the Legislature is to avoid the procrastination of the family matters and under law, such lacunas can also not be filled in by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as an alternative of appeal or revision. Interim order, when not appealable or provided revisional remedy, thereupon, the same cannot be challenged through writ and that could be challenged in appeal filed against the final judgment.
7. The Court would not act in a manner by which, object of statute is defeated and the same is rendered nugatory. My this view finds support from the following authorities: 1.2012 CLC 1900 2.1996 SCM R 1165 3.1998 SCM R 328 4.2004 YLR 1910 -5. 2009 YLR 1621
8. In case titled 'Muhammad Iftikhar Mohamand v. Javed Ahmed and 3 others, reported as [1998 SCM R 328], the Hon'ble apex Court of Pakistan, while resolving the identical controversy has pleased to observe as under:-- "3. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that as the main election petition is still pending before the learned Tribunal and an appeal is provided against the final decision of the Tribunal before this Court, the petitioner in the event of the final decision going against him, will be entitled to raise all the pleas available to him, in the appeal before this Court including the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition which has been overruled by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment."
8. 9.In another case, titled 'Syed Sagheer Ahmed Naqvi v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S&GAD Karachi and another', [1996 SCM R 1165], the Hon'ble apex Court of Pakistan has observed as follows:-- "The statute excluding a right of appeal from the interim order cannot be passed by bringing under attack such interim orders in constitutional jurisdiction. The party affected has to wait till it natures into a final order and then to attach it in the proper exclusive forum created for the purpose of examining such orders."
9. 10.The petitioner may agitate his argument at the stage of final arguments and in case of an adverse order, he may re-agitate his point during the hearing of appeal but in the prevailing circumstances no body can be permitted to procrastinate and linger on the proceedings of a family suit, without any justification for an indefinite period.
10. 11.In view of what has been stated above, finding no force in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.