' MALIK HAMID SAEED, J.---The unhappy matrimonial life of the petitioner Shahid Raza (a practising lawyer) and Dr. Fauzia Shaheen, has dragged them before the Family Court for seeking their respective reliefs of restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower etc.
2. During the course of such proceedings, the examination-in-chief of Dr. Fauzia Shaheen was recorded whereafter counsel for Shahid Raza was asked to cross-examine her. The learned counsel for Shahid Raza after putting certain questions to Dr. Fauzia Shaheen with regard to completion of her Academic Qualifications etc., asked her a question as to on which date, her engagement with Shahid Raza had taken place. In reply, she stated that though the function of her engagement with Shahid Raza had duly taken place yet she could not say as to the exact date of such engagement.
3. The learned counsel for Shahid Raza in order to compel witness for the answer of the said question in the light of certain provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order moved an application for issuing 'mandatory directions to Dr. Fauzia Shaheen in this regard, but the said application was turned down by the trial Court. Shahid Raza then moved an appeal before the learned ASJ, Peshawar, but the same was also dismissed, hence the present writ petition.
4. Under section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure have been made inapplicable to the proceedings before a Family Court. The well- known principle of law is that special provisions excludes the general provisions, as such, the special provisions of Family Court would exclude the general provisions of the Evidence Act as well as Civil Procedure Code. Intention behind the bar imposed seems to be ensuring the expeditious settlement and disposal of dispute relating to family affairs. The superior Courts in Pakistan in a number of judgments, in such-like cases, have been laid down that the Family Court should and must, when the circumstances so demand, exercise its own powers to prevent the course of justice being deflected from its true path. Hence a witness cannot be compelled to give answer to a question and the discretion exercised by the Family Court in the circumstances is just and proper.
5. So far merits are concerned; the question raised was not of a substantial nature as the same was having no relevancy with the dispute. The date of Nikah and 'Rukhsati' both are admitted by the parties.
' Raising of such an irrelevant objection and availing of the remedies of appeal and writ petition is nothing but to stand-still the proceedings in a family dispute, which is against the spirit of the family laws. The Family Court and the Appellate Court have rightly turned down the request of the petitioner.
6. This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot, therefore, entertain a petition against such a well-reasoned order of the Family Court and the writ petition being without any force is liable to be dismissed in limine and we order accordingly.