' The facts of the case in hand are that Amir Khoidad petitioner and Mst. Jehan Zeba, respondent were married about 13/14 years ago. The couple lived . Together happily for some time. Their relations thereafter became strained and because of the in-human treatment of the petitioner the respondent was forced to live with her parents.
2. It was on 11-3-1990 that respondent No,1 (wife) instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance etc., in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner/D.C.Daggar, wherein she alleged that she was entitled to get a decree for dissolution of her marriage on the grounds detailed in the plaint. She also prayed that in the alternative a decree for dissolution of marriage be granted to her by wa of 'Khula'.
3. As a counter-blast the petitioner-husband also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 5-5- 1990.
4. It appears that after the enforcement of the PATA (Nifaz-e-Shariah) Regulation, 1994, the cases were entrusted to the Judge, Family Court/Senior Civil Judge, Daggar (Mr. Himad Ali Shah).
5. Both the suits were consolidated and consolidated issues were framed. The parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective cases. After recording the evidence of the parties, as they wished to produce, the Judge. Family Court, by his judgment recorded on 8-4- 1997 dissolved the marriage and dismissed the suit of the petitioner-husband.
6. Aggrieved by the said order/judgment, the petitioner has assailed the findings of the Judge, Family Court by filing this Constitutional Petition and has prayed that the impugned judgment/decree being without jurisdiction/lawful authority is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
7. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khan Khattak, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard. We have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully.
8. It may be stated at the very out-set that the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has failed to convince us that the lower Court has committed some illegality or material irregularity in dissolving the marriage and dismissing the suit of the petitioner. Similarly, he has failed to point out that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment impugned.
9. On the other hand, we find that the Judge Family Court has properly evaluated/appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and has given valid reasons for his conclusion. Since the judgment of the Judge Family Court is neither arbitrary/perverse nor suffers from any jurisdictional error, therefore, in our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the same by exercising extraordinary powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which, of course, can only be exercised in exceptional cases. If an authority is needed we are supported by case Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and two others, decided by a Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, consisting of 5 Hon'ble Judges, and reported as PLD 1985 Supreme Court 131 wherein it was laid down:- "6. Before parting with the case we may observe that there is an increasing tendency to file Constitutional petition even when the Courts whose orders are challenged had the jurisdiction to pass those orders, notwithstanding the fact that it has been held time and again that where a Court, in contradistinction to a person designate, has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it can do so rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that the decision on a question of fact or law is not correct, does not necessarily render it' without lawful authority' and certainly not illegal. Refer Bardul Haque Khan v. The Election Tribunal, Dacca and others (PLD 1963 SC 704), Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139) and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522).
' We are of the view that the tendency to file such Constitutional petitions tends to clog the superior Courts with frivolous litigation and causes unnecessary delays in the disposal of other cases and this tendency should therefore, be curbed with a strong hand."
10. As the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error, therefore, we are of the view that this writ petition is without any substance. The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine alongwith the Civil Miscellaneous.