Find a Lawyer

SALMAN AHMAD KHAN versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MULTAN

ection Section 5, Schedule and section LL (LA) un-law e-testimony (10 of 1984), Article 164 - Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 - Constitutional plea marriage ????? Recording of statement via video link - Record of evidence Through a sophisticated device - Scope - The wife filed a request to record her statements via video link which the family court accepted - Justification - Family court can handle its procedure the The party violates court infringement. The infringement court cannot relinquish its jurisdiction. Could adopt its own procedure and was not subject to the rigors of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - the family court could take action on the basis that every procedure was allowed unless it was prohibited under Article 164 of the modern law evidence. The evidence obtained through the latest disclosures was admissible, although the evidence of the Conan was not strictly applicable to the Family Court, but the Family Court was not barred from obtaining such evidence under any provision of law. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was obliged to show the applicant that the court below did not exercise its jurisdiction by law, or that the jurisdiction under the order was defective or that the order was illegal or perverse. Order issued by the Family Court dismisses constitutional application as soon as conditions [pp 702, 703], A, BC, O & E

P L D 2017 Lahore 698

Before Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J

SALMAN AHMAD KHAN—Petitioner

versus

JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MULTAN and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 17899 of 2016, decided on 22nd December, 2016.

(a)Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)—

—S. 5, Sched. & S. ll(l-A)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 164—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition— Suit for dissolution of marriage—Recording of statement through video link—Evidence recorded through modern device—Scope—Wife filed application for recording her statement through video link which was accepted by the Family Court—Validity—Family Court could regulate its own procedure—Violation of undertaking by the party could not deprive Court of its jurisdiction—Family Court could adopt its own procedure and was not bound by the rigors of Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Family Court could proceed on the premise that every procedure was permissible unless prohibited—Evidence received through modern evices was admissible under Art. 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadaty 1984, however Qanun-e-Shahadat was not strictly applicable to Family Court but Family Court was not barred from receiving such evidence under any provision of law—Petitioner for invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was bound to show that court below had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or there was jurisdictional defect in the order impugned or order was illegal or perverse—No jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Family Court—Constitutional petition as dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 702, 703], A,B C, O & E

Muhammad Sajjad v. Additional District Judge PLD 2015 Lah. 405; Shakeela Bibi v. M. Israr 2012 MLD 756; Syed Shahid Baig v. Lubna Riaz 2004 CLC 1545; Syed Ghazanfar Abbas Rizvi v. Syed Haider Abbas 2000 YLR 1482 and Khalil ur Rehman Bhatti v. Razia Naz 1984 CLC 890 rel.

(b) Administration of justice—

—Technicalities should not stand in the way of justice, [p. 702] C

Miss Fouzia Kausar Bhatti for Petitioner.

Syed Muzamil Hassan Bukhari for Respondent No.2.

pakistani advocates Kharian lawyer