1. ' The petitioner Mst. Mukhtar Begum has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on a number of grounds including ground of `Khula' before a Family Court at Karachi. When the case was fixed for hearing it was pointed out to the trial Judge that her husband Fida Hussain was served with the notice by the bailiff on her pointation and he refused to accept the summons from the bailiff. Such fact was noted in presence of certain witnesses and the summons were endorsed back to the Court. The Court held service as valid and ordered ex parte proceedings against the respondent.
2. Ultimately the suit was decreed on the basis of 'Khula'. A reference was made to the Chairman of the Local Council, who is said to have confirmed the divorce. It appears that thereafter certain criminal proceedings were initiated wherein the respondent Fida Hussain became aware of the ex parte decree passed against him. He, therefore, rushed to the Family Court and filed an application for urgent hearing during the vacation and prayed that ex parte decree passed against him' be set aside. This application was, however, rejected and no orders were passed on the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The respondent once again repeated his application for setting aside ex parte decree which was taken up by the IV Civil and Family Judge Karachi (West), who, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 15-1-1990, whereby ex parte decree passed in the suit was set aside and the respondent No,1 was directed to file his written statement. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 199 of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, Advocate for the petitioner, has mainly contended that on the basis of evidence on record of the case, the trial Judge was not right in setting aside the ex parte decree, which was passed earlier in the case, particularly when the divorce was confirmed by the Council Chairman and she had contracted second marriage.
3. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne Advocate for the petitioner has, however, not been able to show if the order impugned in this petition has been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction by the Family Judge to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. ' As a result, I fmd no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no orders as to costs.