1. ' By this petition the petitioner has sought for the following relief:- "Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the order passed by the respondent No,1 dated 21-3-2001 as illegal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27-5-2000, obtained by the respondent No,2 by playing fraud upon the respondent No,1 and misrepresentation of facts with costs to the petitioner."
2. ' It will be pertinent to briefly give the facts of the case as follows:- ' That the petitioner married with the respondent No,2 in accordance with Sunni Muslim Law and a sum of Rs,600 was settled as dower amount. The said marriage took place in the month of May, 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No,2 left the house of the petitioner and filed family suit bearing No,79 of 2000 for maintenance which was decreed on 27-5-2000 and appeal bearing Family Appeal No,99 of 2000 preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment dated 7-12-2000; that the respondent No,2 has filed Execution Application bearing No,8 of 2000 on 11-7-2000 against which the petitioner had filed an application for consideration of certain points before execution of decree which could not be brought at the time of filing the written statement and during hearing of that application on 6-2-2001 when the respondent No,2 was present in Court, upon inquiry by the respondent No,1 the respondent No,2 had in open Court admitted the fact of pronouncement of discourse 6 months before filing the suit for maintenance as such hearing was adjourned for 19-2-2001 for filing the statement of payment of maintenance in the light of admission made by the respondent No,2; that on 19-2-2001 the petitioner had filed two applications one under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. And other under Order XIX, Rule 2 read with section 193, C.P.C. On which date once again upon inquiry by the learned respondent No,1 the respondent No,2 had in open Court admitted the fact of pronouncement of divorce 6 months before filing the suit for maintenance.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. ' It has been argued by Mr.M.S. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that twice inquiry was held by the respondent No,1 and the respondent No,2 had in open Court admitted the fact of pronouncement of divorce 6 months before filing the suit for maintenance but the learned respondent No,1 did not take notice of such admission and its effect on the decree for maintenance in the changed circumstances; that the respondent No,1 has failed to exercise its jurisdiction while dismissing applications moved by the petitioner purely on technical grounds whereas a Family Court although a forum of limited jurisdiction yet Court has to regulate its own proceedings as West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 does not make provision for every conceivable eventuality and unforeseen circumstances and lastly it has been urged that the learned respondent No,1 had ignored the legal position that the suit for recovery of maintenance and recovery of dowry articles are two different causes of actions for which separate suits are required to be filed. In support of the aforementioned contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the cases of Chaudhary Ghulam Ghaus through Legal Heirs v. Saifullah and another (2001 SCM R 159) and Syed Ali Asghar and 3 others v. Creators (Builders) and 3 others (2001 SCM R 279).
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that on merit the petitioner has no case: that the petitioner has filed this petition only in order to harass the respondent No,2; that no divorce has been pronounced by the petitioner in open Court and the contention of the petitioner regarding talaq is without any foundation and the respondent No,2 filed suit for maintenance and recovery of articles because of cruel behavior of the petitioner and she was ousted from the house of the petitioner; that there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that \the respondent No,2 was openly divorced by the petitioner and lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 that although the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 7-12-2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (South), in Family Appeal bearing No,99 of 2000, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable. To support his arguments he has invited my attention to the cases of Khaliq Dad and 31 others v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 12 others (2001 CLC 518) and Kohinoor Industries Limited v. Government of Pakistan (2001 CLC 494).
6. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their assistance have gone through the record.
7. ' Perusal of record shows that vide judgment and decree dated 27-5-2000 the learned IInd Family Judge, Karachi (South), disposed of Family Suit No,79 of 2000, filed by the respondent No,2 Mst.
8. Maria Liaquat, with the findings made therein. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement the petitioner Muhammad Shakir had filed Family Appeal bearing No,99 of 2000 in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (South), which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgement dated 7-12-2000. After dismissal of the Family Appeal No, 99 of 2000, the respondent No,2 Mst. Maria Liaquat initiated execution proceedings in the learned IInd Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (South). In the meanwhile, the petitioner had moved an application in the Court of IInd Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (South) for consideration of points mentioned in this supporting affidavit before execution of decree, which was resultantly dismissed on 21-3-2001 being meritless and order for attachment of dowry articles was allowed vide order dated 24-3-2001.
9. ' In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 21-3-2001 and the execution proceedings. However, he has failed to challenge the vices of the judgment and decree, dated 7-12-2000, passed by the District Judge, Karachi (South) in Family Appeal No,99 of 2000.
10. ' During the course of arguments when the learned counsel for the petitioner was intercepted as to why the judgment passed by the District Judge, Karachi (South) has not been challenged before this Court, he replied that he did not feel it necessary. It shows that the petitioner had not come before this Court with clean hands. Moreso, this also makes petition as not maintainable inasmcuh as the petitioner has not exercised all the remedies available to him before approaching this Court under Constitutional jurisdiction.
11. ' In the reported case of Khalid Dad and 31 others (Supra) the orders were passed by High Court were not challenged before the Supreme Court and it was held that such orders of High Court had attained finality and on the basis of principles of res judicata the same was binding between the parties.
12. ' The citations referred to above by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
13. ' Looking to the above factual and legal position, the petition is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications.