SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. The instant constitutional petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution") by the petitioner, which carries the following relief; "It is therefore respectfully prayed that the 'impugned judgment dated 24.09.2022, passed by the respondent No.2/Appellate Court may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. Facts relevant for disposal of the instant petition arc that Huma Khan daughter of the petitioner filed a suit before the learned Family Judge-II, Quetta ("Trial Court")for recovery of dower amount and dowry articles, averring therein that she got married to Respondent No.1 on 14.12.2015 against Haq Mehr of 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh), which was not paid and that after few months of marriage their relation become strained and respondent No.1 on 21.04.2016 pronounced divorce to the petitioner and expelled her from his house, whereafter the petitioner filed the aforementioned suit.
Respondent No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein the allegations were strenuously repudiated.
3. The Trial Court, out of divergent pleadings framed eight issues, whereafter the parties led their respective evidences and also recorded their statement. After due appraisal of evidence, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2021 decreed the suit of the petitioner, against which Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-IV/Model Civil Appellate Court Quetta ("Appellate Court"), which was modified vide impugned judgment dated 24.08.2022 and consequently, the judgment dated 30.08.2021 passed by the Trial Court to the extent of gold ornaments was set aside, hence this petition.
4. Heard. Record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence passed the following decree in favour of the daughter of the petitioner.
"1) Plaintiff through her legal representatives is entitled to recovery of dower amount of Rs.10, 000/- (ten thousand)
2) The plaintiff/legal representatives are entitled for recovery of following articles from defendant subject to natural wear and tear of objects; S.No Title of the article Quantum (if any)
1. Expensive clothes - 2.Utensils i.e. tea set, dinner set and water set 3.Gold consisting upon 1 set, 4 bangles, rings, bracelet 2 in number.87.2 gm 4.Complete bedding - 5.Shoes 15 pairs - 6.Samsung LED TV - 7.Cushion set complete -
5. Respondent No.1 being dismayed from the judgment dated preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was modified in the following terms; In view what has been discussed above, the Appeal No. 19/2021 filed by appellant Ehsanullah is hereby partly decreed, consequently the impugned judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2021 passed by learned Family Judge-II, Quetta to extent of gold ornaments is hereby set-aside and Family Suit No. 165/2018 is hereby partly decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs to the following effects: 1) Huma Khan through her legal representative is entitled to recovery of dower amount of Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousands)."
6. While imparting the judgment a question cropped up before us that as to whether after demise of Huma Khan daughter of petitioner, the right to sue survives and the petitioner being mother has a right to claim relief under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ("Act of 1964") or for that purpose the petitioner may file a civil suit as legal representative for her share under the law of Inheritance.
7. Admittedly, under section 5 of the Act of 1964, the Family Court has been conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicated upon the matters specified in the Schedule of the Act ibid. Dower and Dowry Article do figure in the said Schedule, thus, the subject matter and relief squares within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.
8. Initially, the instant suit was filed by the spouse against her husband, but unfortunately during pendency of the suit she died, thus, the petitioner being her mother was arrayed as plaintiff, thus, the Family Court proceeded with the suit and decreed in the terms mentioned in the para supra, which was later modified by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2022.
9. Question remains as to whether, the petitioner can replace her daughter after her death and claim relief of dower and dowry article as legal representative. The apex Court in the case of "Khah Assadullah Khan v. Sheikh Islam ud Din" (PLD 1978 Lah. 711) held that where in a matter the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the right to sue survive. The larger Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court in the case of "Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal" (PLD 1984 SC 95) held that a suit for jactitation of marriage literally means "false pretense" of being married and that the suit could not be confined to a declaration that there was no marriage, including a declaration that a person posing himself to be a spouse was doing so falsely, henceforth the assertion by a party regarding marriage and its denial by the otherside can be brought before the Family Court through a suit for jactitation of marriage. The apex Court while referring to the case of the "Manzoor Ahmed v. Muhammad Nawaz Siddique" (PLD 1975 Lah. 739), further expounded that even if, wedlock is no longer in subsistence, even then dower can be claimed.
In view of the referred judgment it can be gathered with no other view that the jurisdiction of Family Court is determined by the subject matter of the suit and not by the person entitled to invoke the jurisdiction, thus, any suit of such matter mentioned in the Schedule can be instituted before a family court, henceforth the Family Court has rightly proceeded with and adjudicated the matter in hand.
10. Adverting to the impugned judgment, it may be observed that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate and point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, besides above, while independently scanning the evidence and impugned judgment we believe that the same suffers from no error of law, therefore, we are not persuaded to meddle with the impugned judgment.
11. Besides above, the apex Court in the case of the "M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari" (2023 SCMR 1434) held that Article 199 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. It was also held that , if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petition against order of the appellate court, it would open floodgates of litigation, thus, its closure is essential for fair and efficient legal system, therefore, once a matter has been adjudicated on facts by the trial and appellate courts, the High Court should not re-evaluate the facts or substitute the findings of the appellate court with its findings, henceforth, it is essential to achieve closure in legal proceedings and prevent unnecessary litigation. For ready reference, relevant para Nos. 6 and 7 of the M. Hammad's case supra are reproduced hereunder; "6. The objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. However,-it is emphasized that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. Its role is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and procedural improprieties, ensuring the proper administration of justice. In the present case, the Petitioner pursued his case through the family court and its appeal in the district court and then also invoked the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to reargue his case amounting to a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction whereby the High Court upheld the factual findings of appellate court after making its own assessments on the same. Allowing a re-argument of the case constituted to arguing a second appeal which should not have been entertained regardless of the outcome of the case.
7. The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so. In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered final on the facts and it is not for High Court to offer another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases where the legislature's intent to not prolong the dispute is clear. The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes. However, if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate court orders, under Article 199 of the Constitution, it opens floodgates to appellate litigation. Closure of litigation is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law. Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court's opinion with their own - the acceptance of finality of the appellate court's findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution .through existing appeal mechanisms,"
12. In view of the above, we have reached to an irresistible conclusion that the verdict of the Appellate Court is based on proper appraisal of evidence by attending all the material points, which suffers from no wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction, thus, the impugned judgment requires not to be interfered with.
13. For what has been discussed herein above, the petition being shorn of merits is dismissed with no order as to cost.