Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ S. 5‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑ Temporary injunction‑Family Court granting temporary injunc tion restraining wife from entering into marriage till decision of suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband‑Contention that Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass such order as C.P.C. has not been made specifically applicable to such suits, held, has no force‑Court granting final relief can also grant interim relief‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).‑[Injunction].

‑‑‑‑ S. 5‑Balance of convenience‑Husband filing suit for restitution of conjugal rights‑Lady not denying wife of man‑If lady entered into second marriage during pendency of suit same will operate hardship if case decided in favour of husband‑Balance of con venience, held, rightly considered in favour of husband.‑[Injunc tion].

Rab Nawaz Malik for Petitioner.

The petitioner lady has taken an exception to a temporary injunction issued on 19th October, 1982 by the Judge Family Court, Ahmadpur East. On the application of the respondent made in suit for restitution of conjugal rights the order so passed is to the effect that the petitioner, lady, "is restrained from entering into another marriage till the pendency of the suit filed by the husband".

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner bas contended in this petition in the first instance that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass such an injunction because the part appertaining to injunctions in C.P.C has not been made specifically applicable to such suits. Secondly, he has contended that there is no prima facie case in favour of respondent No. 1 and the balance of convenience lies also otherwise.

3. So far as goes the first contention, it is hardly maintainable for the simple reason that for interim relief every Court happens t have inherent jurisdiction to preserve the status in the meantime. If a Court can grant the final relief in a suit then it can also rant interim relief arising out of it during its pendency which is conducive to the adjudication itself and to keep the subject‑matter intact. The second contention of the learned counsel is misplaced altogether because it is a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights which has been filed by the husband and it is not the case of the petitioner lady that she was never the wife of the man. The balance of convenience has been rightly considered by the learned Judge Family Court because‑ if the lady enters into a second marriage during the pendency of the said suit then if the said suit is decided in favour of husband it will operate as a hardship because of the second man intervening with the same relation. This writ petition is dismissed in limine being without any substance.

M, A. K. 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.