Ghulam Fareed has through this Constitutional petition called in question judgments and decrees, dated 29-3-2002 and 12-8-2002 respectively passed by Family Court and Additional District Judge, Lodhran as void and without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts which led to this petition are that Mst. Bakhtan Bibi (respondent No.3) tiled a suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner in the Family Court, Dunyapur (respondent No.2). It was contested by the petitioner. Issues were framed, evidence of the respondent was recorded and the case was posted to 19-3-2002 for evidence of the petitioner. On that date the petitioner did not appear neither his evidence was present. However, on the request of his counsel last opportunity was provided to the petitioner on cost of Rs.200 for producing evidence on 28-3-2002.
On that date, the petitioner was again not present neither his evidence was present, cost was also not paid by him. Hence his evidence was closed by the Family Court and the case was adjourned for final arguments to 29-3-2002 when the case was finally argued by the learned counsel for the parties and it was ultimately decreed.
3. Petitioner's appeal against that decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lodhran on 12-8-2002.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned Family Court committed an illegality in not consolidating the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights with the suit for jactitation of marriage. This argument is without any substance because suit for requisition of conjugal rights was filed on 20-2-2002 when in the other suit issues stood framed prior to that on 14-2-2002 and the case was at the evidence stage. Apart from that it was not mandatory for the Family Court to have consolidated suit for restitution of conjugal rights with that of jactitation of marriage as identical questions of law and facts were not involved.
5. It was next submitted by the petitioner's counsel that pre-trial and post---trial reconciliation proceedings were not conducted by the Family Court which were mandatory.
6. This argument is misconceived' inasmuch as object of reconciliation is to try to organize a compromise for harmonious union of the spouses with a view to save matrimonial life from further deterioration. It is necessary where marriage admittedly subsists. In a suit for jactitation of marriage existence of valid marriage is denied. Hence reconciliation proceeding in such a case would be meaningless. Anyhow, pre-trial reconciliation proceedings were conducted in this case by the trial Court on 14-2-2002. However, after conclusion of evidence which was un-rebutted it had become apparent that no valid Nikah between the parties subsists. It was, therefore, not found fit to fix a date of post-reconciliation proceedings. Non--compliance of the provisions of sections 10 and 12 of the Family Courts Act does, not constitute a ground for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction when the said objection was not raised in appeal before the Appellate Court.
7. Next argument of the petitioner's counsel was that the Family Court had closed the petitioner's evidence in a hasty marine and sufficient opportunity was not provides to him for producing evidence.
8. According to record the date or which the petitioner's evidence was closed was obtained by the petitioner's counsel subject to cost and warning that it would be last opportunity; despite that on the said date neither defendant and his evidence was present nor cost was not paid. According to record no request was made on behalf of the petitioner for providing another adjournment for producing evidence. Even otherwise order of Family Court declining adjournment or extension of time for producing evidence is absolutely discretionary and such order cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
9. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court while deciding the suit relied only on the evidence of respondent No.3 which was not confidence- inspiring.
10. The said argument is without any force because on record, only evidence of respondent No.3 was available as the petitioner did not produce any evidence. The Family Court, therefore, had no alternative but to advert to that evidence which was available on record and to decide the case in the light of that evidence.
11. So far as the reliability of that evidence is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain any cogent reason to support his said contention.
12. High Court in its extraordinary Jurisdiction can neither substitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below nor give its opinion regarding adequacy of evidence. Such matters should be decided by the Courts below vested with jurisdiction to decide them.
13. Assessm ent of evidence is the function of the Family Court which was vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matter. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been over-- looked while decreeing the case.
Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate Court cannot be successfully assailed in writ petition.
14. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.