IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN  
 
 
Civil Petitions No.357 and 358 of 2016 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3.12.2015 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, 
Multan in W.P. No.7117 of 2011) 
 
Mst. Yasmeen Bibi 
….Petitioner in both 
VERSUS  
 
Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan & others  
….Respondents in both 
 
 
For the petitioner: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Waseem Shahab, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the respondents: 
 
Mr. Saleem Ullah Ranazai, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
28.4.2016 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Dost Muhammad Khan, J. — Leave to appeal is sought against 
the judgment of the learned single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore 
High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 3.12.2015. 
 
Arguments of the learned ASCs for the parties heard, impugned 
judgments of the Judge Family Court, the District Appeal Court and the 
one under consideration, of the Lahore High Court were carefully 
perused.  
2. 
  
Brief facts of the controversy are that the petitioner, Mst. 
Yasmeen Bibi entered into wedlock with the respondent namely, 
Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan on 8.5.1994. The dower deed (Nikah 
Nama) was duly exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1 wherein, it was stipulated that 
dower in cash, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- fixed, shall be payable on 
demand.  
CPs 357-358/16 
2 
3. 
  
In column No.17 it was further undertaken by the 
respondent that he would pay Rs.1000/- to the petitioner as pocket 
money, besides the land measuring 200 Kanal situated in Moza Amir 
Shah, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan shall also be transferred in the 
name of the petitioner-wife and she would be exclusively owner of the 
same. The parties were blessed with two male children however, 
during the happy wedlock, the marital relationship received a sudden 
serious jolt and the petitioner was deserted from the home.  
4. 
  
During the above period a written divorce (Ex.P-5/1) was 
sent on her address, which she received. The divorce deed squarely 
shows that it was irrevocable divorce because it was pronounced on 
1.3.2005 three times in the written divorce deed in presence of the 
witnesses.  
5. 
  
It was in the above background that the petitioner was 
paddled up for litigation and she brought two separate suits, one for 
recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance, recovery of dower and 
the other for the recovery of dowry articles in the Family Court, Multan 
on 17.6.2005. While as a counterblast, the respondent, Muhammad 
Ghazanfar Khan instituted a suit on 18.11.2005 for restitution of 
conjugal rights on the plea that the divorce given, was revocable and 
was not final.  
  
It may be stated here that the respondent has also contracted 
second marriage in the meanwhile.  
6. 
  
Keeping in view the sky high rocketing prices of daily 
commodities and needs of life, the Trial Court decreed the suit for 
arrears of maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- till the time of ‘Iddat’ and also 
decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as dower. Besides, the 
CPs 357-358/16 
3 
landed property described in the column of “Nikah Nama” was also 
decreed after holding that it was within the jurisdiction of the Family 
Court as the petitioner-plaintiff was residing at Multan within the 
jurisdiction of the Court. Further, decree for the recovery of dowry 
articles was also granted on the basis of evidence and because of the 
admission made by the respondent-defendant that the dowry articles 
were lying with him, albeit, these were earlier denied by him in his 
written statement.  
7. 
  
The District Appeal Court while seized of the two cross 
appeals, modified the decree by setting aside the decree of the Judge 
Family Court with regard to the land measuring 200-K in District DI. 
Khan and also the decree with regard to the dowry articles. The order 
of the District Appeal Court is absolutely sketchy being bereft of 
reasons, much less cogent one and is also against the statutory law on 
the subject.  
8. 
 
 The learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, 
Multan Bench vide impugned judgment, without going through the 
scheme of Family Court Act, amended upto date, jumped at the 
conclusion that all the issues, involved in the case were beyond the 
jurisdiction of the Family Court and in this regard the learned Judge 
without any care and caution to observe, relied on the view held in the 
case of Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Hajira Bibi and two others 
(PLD 2007 Lahore 515), which view is based on the judgment of the 
learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench 
where similar view was held in the case of Allauddin Arshad v. Mst. 
Nelofer Tareen(1984 CLC 3369).  
CPs 357-358/16 
4 
9. 
  
The preamble of the West Pakistan Family Court, Act, 
1964 is to the following effect: 
“Preamble.– WHEREAS it is expedient to make provisions for 
the establishment of Family Courts for the expeditious 
settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and 
family affairs and for matters connected therewith.” 
 
In the schedule amended upto date, the matrimonial disputes include: 
(i) 
dissolution of marriage [including Khula)  
(ii) 
dower 
(iii) 
maintenance  
(iv) 
restitution of conjugal rights 
(v) 
custody of children [and visitation rights of parents to 
meet them] 
(vi) 
guardianship 
(vii) 
gactitation of marriage 
(viii) 
dowry 
(ix) 
personal property and belongings of wife  
10. 
  
Before promulgation and enactment of the Muslims 
Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the West Pakistan Family 
Court Act, 1964, such matters were dealt with by the Civil Courts or 
Criminal Courts with regard to the maintenance allowance, which was 
a cumbersome, lengthy and tiring procedure. For getting the final 
relief of her grievances, the wife had to wait for years for recovery of 
dower, maintenance and other ancillary matters. In cases of 
dissolution of marriage, it had to consume years and after getting the 
decree by that time, majority of the wives had to become grey haired 
and much beyond the remarriage-able age, beside incurring heavy 
expenses on getting the relief with regard to a meager amount of 
maintenance, dower etc.  
It was in the above background that the Legislature felt essential 
to provide for establishment of Family Courts to deal with all 
CPs 357-358/16 
5 
matrimonial disputes, mentioned above, in an expeditious manner, 
curtailing the life of litigation in such cases. To curb and suppress the 
mischief of delaying tactics on the part of unscrupulous husbands, 
several amendments were introduced to the Family Court Act, 1964. 
Some amendments bearing striking features may be cited below:- 
“S.12-A. Case to be disposed of within a specified 
period.. A Family Court shall dispose of a case, including 
a suit for dissolution of marriage, within a period of six 
months from the date of institution: 
Provided that where a case is not disposed of 
within six months either party shall have a right to make 
an application to the High Court for necessary direction as 
the High Court may deem fit.”  
“S. 17-A.  This newly enacted provision was with the 
object to curb the mischief of delaying tactics and the 
Family Court was brought under obligation to pass interim 
order, directing the husband to pay interim maintenance 
allowance to the children and the wife after filing written 
statement or at any stage thereafter.” 
“The provision of S.21-A was also added to the Family 
Court Act, conferring power upon Family Court to 
preserve and protect any property, which is in dispute in 
a suit or any other property of a party to the suit for the 
future satisfaction of the decree.”  
 
To further accelerate and expedite the disposal of such cases, 
the District Appeal Court and the High Court, orders staying the 
proceedings before the Family Court, shall cease to be effective on 
expiring of thirty days time. Again, u/s 14, through amendment, it 
was made mandatory for the Court of Appeal to decide the case 
positively within four months.  
11. 
  
Keeping in view the clear and manifest intention and 
object of the Legislature by drastically amending the provisions of the 
Family Court, Act, a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, after 
CPs 357-358/16 
6 
elaborately dealing with the same held that, “by now, the Family Court 
alone has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial 
disputes of whatever nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, 
provided that the Family Court where the wife resides shall have the 
jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims [see. Muhammad Tariq v. 
Mst. Shaheen (PLD 2006 Peshawar 189)]. The view held by the 
Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court was not set aside by the 
Supreme Court thus, the same had attained finality and has got strong 
persuasive effects, which cannot be lightly ignored.  
12. 
  
Keeping in view the agonies of the parties, particularly the 
wife, in matrimonial disputes to curtail the mischief of delay and to 
shorten the life of litigation in such cases, the Law & Justice 
Commission of Pakistan recommended to the Federal Government and 
all the Provincial Governments to establish Family Courts in each 
District and Tehsil Headquarter, which shall be preferably presided 
over by a female Judge so that the wives who are not well acquainted 
and familiar with the court proceedings are provided maximum 
protection and friendly environments.  
13. 
  
To provide quicker relief to the wife, amendments were 
also made in the relevant provisions, where dissolution of marriage is 
sought on the basis of “Khula”, that on failure of conciliation efforts 
made by the Family Court at preliminary stage, the Family Court is 
invested with powers to dissolve the marriage there and then, without 
subjecting the wife to unending litigation. 
14. 
  
It is demonstrably clear from these drastic amendments 
made in the Family Court Act including the new provisions added 
therein, that the Legislature was well aware of the miseries and plight 
CPs 357-358/16 
7 
of the wives, seeking relief through the obsolete law then in vogue 
thus, to minimize the same not only all matrimonial disputes were 
brought under one and the same umbrella of the Family Court but also 
provided for the target date, both for the Family Court and for the 
Appeal Court, by which such cases shall be decided conclusively. The 
jurisdiction and powers of all other courts thus stand excluded in these 
matters much less Civil Court therefore, pushing one or the other 
party to the Civil Court would be in clear violation of the mandatory 
provision of the law on the subject and would amount to reverse the 
efficacious remedies available to them under the new scheme of law.  
15. 
  
In the case of dissolution of marriage on the basis of 
“Khula”  a full Bench of the High Court in the case of Dr.Fakhr-ud v. 
Mst. Kausar Takreem and another (PLD 2009 Peshawar 92) 
while interpreting and construing all these new provisions introduced 
in the Family Court Act held that the relevant provisions of the 
Family Court Act, 1964 and that of Muslim Family Laws 
Ordinance, 1961 were ultra-vires to the extent that the wife has to 
return the dower in case of dissolution of marriage on the basis of 
“Khula” because under the Islamic injunction and according to the 
relevant verses of Holy Qura’an the wife has only to return the other 
benefits, given to her by way of gift etc. and not the dower amount 
because that is most essential consideration for valid contract of 
marriage being a civil contract, which cannot become binding and valid 
unless the consideration is paid. In the said judgment, many 
guidelines and principles have been laid down and till date the said 
judgment holds the field, which needs to be followed and regarded 
without any exception unless and until it is set aside by the Supreme 
Court.  
CPs 357-358/16 
8 
16. 
  
Under the provision of S.17 of the Act, 1964, all the 
provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and that of Civil 
Procedure Code (except Ss.10 and 11) have been expressly excluded 
in its application to the cases tried by the Family Courts, thus, pushing 
the wives to the Civil Courts in view of the ouster clause in the above 
provisions, would be against the statutory law, binding in nature and 
any judgment of any Court in conflict of the statutory law, shall be 
ineffective to that extent, because, the latter occupies the high 
pedestal and unless it is declared ultra-vires of the Constitution, on the 
touchstone of the relevant provisions thereof, it shall have overriding 
and superimposing effects on the judgment of any Court.  
17. 
  
As in this case the landed property, given to the wife, or 
the undertaking given in the “Nikah Nama”, to be transferred to her 
name is conclusive in nature and may be construed as a part of dower 
or a gift in consideration of marriage therefore, it was falling within the 
exclusive domain of the Family Court at Multan, as the wife was/is 
residing there, which has not been denied by the respondent, 
therefore, in our considered view, the District Appeal Court and the 
learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court, Multan Bench, Multan fell 
into legal error by holding the view to the contrary. Any departure 
made from the true object and spirit of law, enacted by the Legislature 
would defeat the same, which is not permissible under any cannon of 
justice and principle of law, nor the Courts are having any authority or 
powers to import their own opinion therein, defeating the clear 
intention of the Legislature and when the provisions of Ss. 16 to 20 of 
the CPC stand excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court 
then, the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, 
provided that the Family Court where the wife resides, shall have the 
CPs 357-358/16 
9 
exclusive jurisdiction over all such matters for the sake of convenience 
because Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 so 
provides.  
18. 
  
In view of what has been discussed above, these petitions 
are converted into appeal and the same are allowed. However, the 
learned High Court has not decided the matter on merit, therefore, 
these cases are remanded to the learned High Court, Lahore, Multan 
Bench to decide the case in light of the above findings, observations 
and guidelines. 
Keeping in view the long history of these case, it is expected that 
the High Court would decide these cases on merit within a minimum 
possible time for the sake of substantial justice.  
19. 
  
Before parting with this judgment, it is essential to state 
that these petitions are barred by 2 & 4 days respectively, however, 
keeping in view the important law points of public importance, 
involved and because right to dower, dowry articles and maintenance 
is involved, which cannot be lightly ignored, therefore, the delay of 2 
and 4 days respectively, in filing these petitions is condoned.  
 
  
Appeals are allowed in the above terms.  
 
Judge  
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the  
28th April, 2016 
‘Nisar/-‘ 
 
 
 
Approved For Reporting.