IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
CP No. S- 94/2023. : Muhammad Imran vs. Mst. Javeria Manzoor
& others.
For the Petitioner : None.
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Zafar Ali Jatoi, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 02.05.2024.
Date of order : 02.05.2024.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This petition challenges successive judgments rendered in the family jurisdiction. An order dated 15.10.2022 was passed by the Family Judge Shikarpur, whereby while deciding Guardianship Application No.42/2021, the custody issue of minors was determined. Guardianship Appeal No.02/2022 was dismissed by learned District Judge, Shikarpur vide judgment dated 10.03.2023. The present petition assails the respective judgments, however, invocation of writ jurisdiction in such matters is deprecated by Supreme Court in Hamad Hasan[1] and Arif Fareed[2].
While the petitioner remains unrepresented, perusal of the record demonstrates the absence of any jurisdictional defect. The pleadings also do not make any such averment
It is settled law that the ambit of a writ petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further appeal is provided[3], and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned. It is trite law[4] 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.
The impugned judgments appear to be well-reasoned, devoid of any manifest infirmity and it is also not discernible that that they could not have been rested upon the rationale relied upon.
The Supreme Court has recently had occasion to revisit the issue of family matters being escalated in writ petitions, post exhaustion of the entire statutory remedial hierarchy, in Hamad Hasan[5] and has deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words. It has inter alia been illumined that in such matters the High Court does not ordinarily appraise, re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact; cannot permit constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for appellate / revisionary jurisdiction; ought not to lightly interfere with the conclusiveness ascribed to the final stage of proceedings in the statutory hierarchy as the same could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent; and the Court may remain concerned primarily with any jurisdictional defect. Similar views were earlier expounded in Arif Fareed[6].
It is the deliberated view of this Court that the present petitions do not qualify on the anvil of Hamad Hasan and Arif Fareed and even otherwise no case is made out to interfere in respect of the findings on merit. Therefore, in mutatis mutandis application of the ratio illumined, coupled with the rationale delineated supra, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, hereby dismissed along with listed application/s.
Judge
[1] Per Ayesha A. Malik J in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 1434.
[2] Per Amin ud Din Ahmed J in Arif Fareed vs. Bibi Sara & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 413.
[3] Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court reported as PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391.
[4] 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.
[5] Per Ayesha A. Malik J in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 1434.
[6] Per Amin ud Din Ahmed J in Arif Fareed vs. Bibi Sara & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 413.