Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1968, decided on 6th May 1968.

S. 488 read with West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964). Ss. 5 & 20 Schedule‑"Maintenance"‑Meaning‑Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. to entertain and hear petitions for maintenance.

Jurisdiction‑Statute creating special Tribunal Jurisdiction of ordinary Courts is excluded even in absence of express words ousting their Jurisdiction.

Noor Zaman v. Mst. Saidano P L D 1967 Pesh. 343 rel.

A. H. Najfi for Petitioner.

Munawwar Hussain for Respondent.

Mst. Shamim Fardous petitioner instituted proceedings under section 488, Cr. P. C. for maintenance on behalf of her minor child, Adnan Afzal, against her husband, Major Sher Afzal. That case was pending in the Court of Ch. Muhammad Jaleel Khan, City Magistrate, Sialkot in 1964. After that it was transferred by the learned District Magistrate to the Court of the S. D. M., Daska. When the S. D. M. was transferred, the case eventually came up before the District Magistrate, Sailkot, who vide his order dated the 9th of December 1967, dismissed the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it, as his jurisdiction had been ousted by the West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964). Against that order the petitioner has preferred this revision.

2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act did not apply to the cases pending at the time when it came into force. This contention has no force because section 1 (4) and (5) only makes an exception regarding suits pending under the Guardian and Wards Acts. Further it was contended that the order for maintenance under section 488, Cr. P. C. was not covered by maintenance as mentioned in the Schedule of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act. This contention also has no force because the reading of section 5 with section 20 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act makes it abundantly clear that the term "maintenance" includes orders for maintenance under section 488, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and hear such petitions. It is well‑established principle of law that where special Tribunal is created, then by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts is excluded even in the absence of the express words ousting the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts. I am fortified in this view by the judg ment in case Moor Zaman v. Mst. Saidano (P L D 1967 Pesh. 343).

3. In the result this petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.