Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1183 of 1967, decided on 1st August 1967.

S. 14(1) (b), (2)‑Decree passed for dissolution of marriage‑Husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed simultaneously‑No appeal being competent from decree for dissolution of marriage, such decree becomes conclusive‑Held, District Judge was justified in refusing to proceed with husband's appeal against dismissal of his suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

S. M. Shafiq for Petitioner.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 3rd of June 1967 passed under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act in his capacity as an appellate authority under that Act.

2. Mst. Iqbal Begum, respondent in this writ petition, was the wife of Sh. Qudrat Ullah, petitioner, and she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. The husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court heard the two cases together and finally dismissed the suit of the husband, but granted a decree for dissolution of marriage to the wife. The husband appealed against both the decrees. At the hearing of the appeal, an objection was raised to the effect that no appeal was competent against a decree for dissolution of marriage under subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. This objection prevailed and the learned Additional District Judge held that the decree, for dissolution of marriage, having become final, the question of determining the appeal against the decision of the Family Court, refusing restitution of conjugal rights to the husband, did not arise. This finding of the learned Additional District Judge has been called into question by this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel has frankly conceded that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, so far as it related to the non‑competence of an appeal against a decree for dissolution of marriage is not exceptionable. He, however, maintains that there is a clear right of appeal under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 14 against a judgment in a case relating to restitution of conjugal rights. The argument on the face of it appears to be attractive, but on further analysis, it appears, that by conferring finality on a decree for dissolution of marriage, the Legislature clearly intended that there should be no revival of any controversy with regard to the existence of conjugal relations between the parties. We, therefore, find that although there is no clear prohibition against an appeal from an order of a Family Court, refusing the restitution of conjugal rights, yet keeping in view the object of the law and clear command of the Legislature, no appeal would be competent against an order, refusing the restitution of conjugal rights, where a decree for dissolution of marriage has been passed. From the language of section 14, we cannot spell out a power for the appellate Court to destroy the effect of a decree of dissolution of marriage, which under the law bas become conclusive and unassailable by proceeding to hear the appeal of the husband against an order passed by the Family Court, rejecting his prayer for granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Moreover, any proceedings before the appellate Court in regard to an appeal against the order of the Court, refusing restitution of conjugal rights, would be abortive and futile, because the decision of the appellate Court can, in no way, affect the finality of the decree of dissolution of marriage.

4. In our opinion, the learned Additional District Judge was right in refusing to entertain and hear the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Family Court Judge, Rawalpindi, refusing to him the restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The writ petition is consequently dismissed in limine.

A.H. 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.