This is a writ petition assailing concurrent judgments rendered in the family jurisdiction. Family Suit 21 of 2022 was decreed vide judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Court of Family Judge, Tando Allahyar after a demonstratively detailed appreciation of evidence. Family Appeal 06 of 2023, filed there against, was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.05.2023 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Tando Allahyar. The case articulated before the Court by the petitioner's counsel is that the evidence has not been appreciated in its proper perspective by the respective fora, hence, the exercise may be conducted de novo in this writ petition.
It is settled law that the ambit of a writ petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further appeal is provided,[1] and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned. It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law. The impugned judgments are well reasoned and the learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate any manifest infirmity therein or that they could not have been rested upon the rationale relied upon.
In so far as the plea for de novo appreciation of evidence is concerned, it would suffice to observe that writ jurisdiction is not an amenable forum in such regard.[3] The Supreme Court has recently had occasion to revisit the issue of family matters being escalated in writ petitions, post exhaustion of the entire statutory remedial hierarchy, in Hamad Hasan[4] and has deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words.
It has inter alia been illumined that in such matters the High Court does not ordinarily appraise, re- examine evidence or disturb findings of fact; cannot permit constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for appellate/revisionary jurisdiction; ought not to lightly interfere with the conclusiveness ascribed to the final stage of proceedings in the statutory hierarchy as the same could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent; and the Court may remain concerned primarily with any jurisdictional defect. It is the deliberated view of this Court that the present petition does not qualify on the anvil of Hamad Hasan. Therefore, in mutatis mutandis application of the ratio illumined, coupled with the rationale delineated supra, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, hereby dismissed along with listed application.
1. Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J. in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court reported as PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391.
2. Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.
3. 2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415.
4. Per Ayesha A. Malik J in yet to be reported judgment dated 17.07.2023 delivered in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & Others (Civil Petition No. 1418 of 2023).