IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
C. P No. S-113 of 2020 : Fayaz Hussain vs.
Mst. Shabana Brohi & Another
For the petitioner : Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi
Advocate
Fayaz Hussain Khoso
Petitioner
Date of hearing : 17.01.2022
Date of announcement : 17.01.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Briefly stated, a suit for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance was filed before the Family Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, which was allowed vide judgment dated 16.04.2019. In appeal, vide judgment dated 08.02.2020, the learned III-Additional District Judge, Larkana modified the earlier judgment inter alia to the extent that the claim for dowry articles was declined, as not having been proven, and the delivery expenses were reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Notwithstanding the foregoing the petitioner, being the defendant/respondent in the earlier proceedings, has filed this petition to challenge the respective judgments.
2. The sole contention articulated before this court was that since the petitioner has divorced the respondent, therefore, the impugned judgments and decree to be set-aside.
3. Learned counsel was asked as to whether its sole contention found any mention in the memorandum of petition, or in the pleadings filed before the respective fora of subordinate jurisdiction, and he replied in the negative. Learned counsel was also asked as to whether any certificate of confirmation of divorce issued by the Union Council/competent authority had been filed along with the petition and / or brought to the notice of the courts below and the learned counsel replied in the negative.
4. The ambit of constitutional petition is not that of yet another forum of appeal and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the judgment impugned. It is trite law[1] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
5. Article 199 of the Constitution contemplates the discretionary[2] writ jurisdiction of this Court and the said discretion may be exercised in the absence of an adequate remedy. In the present matter admittedly there existed an adequate remedy, however, the same was duly availed / exhausted and no case has been set forth before us for invocation of the writ jurisdiction.
6. The learned counsel has not even endeavored to identity any irregularity and/or illegality with respect to the judgments impugned and the only plea articulated is alien to the pleadings and the record before this Court.
7. In view hereof, we are constrained to observe that no case has been set forth for the invocation of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
[1] Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.
[2] Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.