M/s. Muhammad Yaqub Sabir and Iftikhar Ahmad Sipra, Advocates have appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. They have accepted service and have requested to be heard.
2. Counsel for the parties heard.
3. The petitioner has challenged interim order dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore whereby he allowed the evidence of the father of plaintiff as her special attorney.
4. The brief facts are that a suit for recovery of dower and another suit for maintenance were instituted by respondent No. 2./plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant in the Family Court, Lahore. Those suits were consolidated and the trial proceeded thereafter. On 4-7-1996 respondent No. 2/plaintiff wanted to examine her father as a witness to whom she had constituted as her special attorney. The petitioner objected to the examination of the, special attorney and insisted that the complainant should appear as a witness instead of examining her special attorney for which there was allegedly no provision in the Family Courts Act. In this regard, it was contended that the name of special attorney was not included in the list of witnesses nor any application Was moved under section 18 of the Family Courts Act showing that respondent No.2/plaintiff was a Pardanasheen lady and as such her personal attendance could not be insisted or her special attorney could appear on her behalf as witness. In this regard, it was further alleged that respondent No. 2/plaintiff was a working lady as she was employed in the City Bank and as such was used to appear in public thereby losing her claim to be a Pardanasheen lady. Consequently it was prayed that the impugned order allowing her appearance through her father as her special attorney being contrary to law and without jurisdiction may be set at naught.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not competent as the impugned order dated 4-7-1996 was purely of interlocutory nature. In this regard, it was contended, that examination-in-chief of the special attorney has already been recorded by the petitioner persistently avoided to face the trial or to cross-examine the aforesaid witness, although a direction was made by the High Court that the trial shall be concluded before the summer vacations.
6. Secondly it was contended that the interim order passed by the Family Court is not liable to be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Lastly it was alleged that there was no legal Bar that the complainant could not constitute special attorney to appear on her behalf during the trial.
8. I have considered the foregoing contentions and have also gone through the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1964. A perusal of the preamble of the Act itself clearly showed that the object of the legislation was to provide speedy method to settle family disputes by relaxing the ligidity of technicalities of law in the procedural matters. The very object of the Act shall stand defeated if the orders of interlocutory nature are allowed to be challenged on the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The main object of the Act is to provide real and intrinsic inquisitional jurisdiction by introducing a special procedure to settle the family cases quickly and effectively. It is thus obvious that any procedure though not clearly provided may be adopted during trial before the Family Court to meet any unforeseen eventuality provided it is not in conflict with the universal norms of justice. In the instant case, the learned Family Judge has allowed the evidence of the father of the respondent No. 2/plaintiff to whom she has constituted as her special attorney to give evidence on her behalf. This delegation is not contrary either to the general norms of law or to the special procedure provided in the Family Courts Act. On the contrary the Judge of the Family Court is invested with powers under section 15 of the Act to summon any person to appear and give evidence in a case. In the instant matter, the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed, through an interim order, the appearance of special attorney of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 as a witness in the case. In such a situation, no exception can be taken to the impugned order in the given situation.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that father of respondent No.2/plaintiff was not constituted as an attorney nor any document to that effect was placed on record. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 however, submitted that they were in possession of Special power of attorney and that the same shall be produced before the learned trial Court, if so required, during evidence.
10. In view of the above situation, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.