SHAHID WAHEED, J:- This constitutional petition is of the defendant and arises from a suit instituted by respondent No.3 seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry article and maintenance allowance. The allegations made in the plaint were traversed by the present petitioner. On pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led. On consideration of the matter, the Trial Court through judgment dated 26.11.2015 issued a decree in favour of respondent No.3 and held her entitled of maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/- per month for Iddat period only. Respondent No.3 was further held entitled to recover dowry articles as per list Ex-P3 except gold ornaments. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 before the Addl. District Judge, Lahore. This appeal was dismissed through judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016. Penultimate paragraph of the appellate judgment dated 01.12.2016 is to the following effect:- "6.It is evident from the perusal of the record of learned Family Court/T rial Court has not passed the impugned judgment and decree against the financial status of the appellant and the same has been passed after keeping in view the expenses/life necessities of minor in terms of food, cloth etc. In this scenario, the undersigned court is of the view that the learned Family Court/T rial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree which is well reasoned, justified and do not warrants interference by the undersigned court. So undersigned court is reluctant to disagree with the findings of learned T rial Court. "
2. Grouse of the petitioner is that the findings returned by the first appellate Court in the above cited paragraph are not only contrary to record but also bereft of any reason. Elaborating the above complaint, the petitioner 's counsel submits that in the case on hands neither there was any minor nor question of maintenance allowance of the minor was involved but the first appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court with the observation that the same were in consonance with the expenses /life necessities of minor in terms of food, cloth etc.; and, that this fact alone is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the first appellate Court neither appraised the evidence available on record nor applied its independent mind to the findings returned by the Trial Court.
3. After hearing the above noted arguments, I asked learned counsel for respondent No.3, as to how the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court can be approved. Responding to this questio n, he submitted that though the first appellate Court had not returned findings in accordance with law yet this Court by ignoring the judgment of first appellate Court could examine the validity of decree issued by the Trial Court so as to save the parties from further litigation.
4. Arguments canvassed at the Bar give rise to a question as to whether the first appellate Court has decided the petitioner 's appeal questioning the decree dated 26.11.2015 of the Family Court in a lawful manner . The law governing the said question is well settled that appeal under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is a substantive right conferred by the statute and it is continuation of the proceedings, which comes entirely upon the first Appellate Court, carrying with it a right of rehearing of law and facts as well as reviewing the pleadings and evidences afresh. It is the duty of the Court of first appeal to deal with all the issues, as first appeal is a valuable right in which both the questions of law and facts are to be considered and the judgment in the first appeal is to address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving discrete reasoning. In the present case the Addl. District Judge, Lahore has not validly decided the legality or otherwise of the findings and judgment of the Family Court. The judgment of the first appellate Court consists of seven paragraphs. First paragraph is introductory. In the second paragraph the arguments of the petitioner/appellant were recorded whereas third paragraph contained arguments canvassed on behalf of respondent No.3. Fourth paragraph is one liner wherein it was stated that "arguments heard and record perused". In the fifth paragraph the first appellate Court narrated the facts of the case culminating up to findings of the Trial Court. Sixth paragraph, reproduced hereinabove, is that paragraph in which the first appellate Court returned its findings whereas the seventh paragraph contains the order of the first appellate Court. That is all. It is unfortunate that the Addl. District Judge neither: (i) made a bid for proper appraisement of merits of the case put forwarded by the parties nor examined the evidence available on record; (ii) returned findings on any issue framed by the Trial Court nor recorded any cogent reason for maintaining the decree of the Trial Court. Even the observations, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel, for maintaining the decree of the Trial Court were extraneous to the record. This is nothing but dereliction of duty and complete failure to exercise jurisdiction.
5. It is essential that a judge should accord fair and proper hearing to the person sought to be affected by his/her order and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of order made by him/her. The rule requiring independent reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretense of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. In the case on hands the first appellate Court passed the impugned judgment without recording any reason in support thereof. The contribution made by the Addl. District Judge to ascertainment of facts upon appreciation of the evidence is zilch. A judgment of this kind delivered by the first appellate Court cannot be regarded as proper and is of doubtful validity. It does not represent an honest discharge of its duty by the appellate Court.
6. In view of above, I cannot accede to the request of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that I should re-appraise the evidence and come to my own conclusion in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is for the first Appellate Court to give its findings after a proper appreciation of the evidence. Thus, without going into other questions raised by the parties, this constitutional petition is hereby allowed on the basis of above stated question of law. The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016 of the Addl. District Judge, Lahore are hereby set aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently the matter is remanded to the Addl. District Judge, Lahore for a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of two months. Parties are directed to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Lahore on 06.12.2018
7. Before parting with this judgment I also direct the Addl. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to transmit copy of this file alongwith this judgment to the Director General, Directorate of District Judiciary , Lahore High Court, Lahore for its placement before the concerned Hon'ble Inspection Judge for his kind perusal and appropriate action.