Wazir Ahmed V. Sana Habib and 2 others,

2025 M L D 198 [Balochistan] Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ WAZIR AHMED--- Petitioner Versus SANA HABIB and 2 others ---Respondents C.P. No. 2155 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2024. Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) --- ----S.5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199---Suit for recovery of past and future maintenance---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Family Court and Appellate Court in post remand proceedings ---Interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction ---Scope ---Concurrent findings of facts duly drawn by the trial and appellate courts after thorough scrutiny and appraisal of evidence could not be meddled with by reappraisal of the evidence, while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Once the matter has been adjudicated on facts by the trial and appellate courts, the High Court should not re -evaluate the facts or substitute the findings of the appellate court with its findings, thus, it was essential to achieve closure in legal proceedings and prevent unnecessary litigation--- Respondent successfully established her claim for recovery of maintenance, whereas, petitioner had failed to rebut the claim through any tangible evidence ---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst.Isma Bukhari 2023 SCMR 1434 rel. Miss Jamila Kakar for the Petitioner. Sagheer Ahmed for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2024. JUDGMENT SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The instant constitutional petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution") by the petitioner, which carries the following relief; "In view of above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2023 passed by Family Judge -IV Quetta as well as judgment/decree dated 20.11.2023 passed by Additional District Judge -IV Quetta and the suit filed by respondent No.1 may kindly be dismissed as whole, in the interest of justice, equity and fair lay."

2. Facts germane to the lis in hand are that respondent No.1 filed a suit before the learned Family Judge -IV Quetta ("Trial Court") for recovery of past and future maintenance for herself and minor son namely Izhar Khan along with School expenditure, averring therein that the spouse got married on 26.11.2010 against haq mehr of Rs.500,000/ - (Five lakh), which is still payable and out of wedlock Uzair Ahmed aged eight years and Izhar Khan aged six years were born, however, after ten years of marriage, their relation become strained due to maltreatment by the petitioner, thus, she took shelter in her parents house along with minor Izhar Khan, whereas Uzair Ahmed aged eight years remained in the custody of his father; whereafter she claimed maintenance for her herself as well as for minor Izhar Khan from the petitioner, who is an officer in police department, but in vain. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein the allegations were strenuously repudiated and urged that the petitioner has always maintained respondent No.1 as well as minors.

3. The Trial Court out of divergent pleadings framed five issues, whereafter the parties led their respective evidences and also recorded their statement before Trial Court. After due appraisal of evidence, the Trial Court on 23.08.2022 decreed the suit of respondent No.1, which judgment was assailed before the learned Additional District Judge -IV Quetta ("Appellate Court"). The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2022, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2022 and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for re -writing of judgment as the issues were not decided in terms of Order XX Rule 5 C.P.C.

4. After receipt of the case file, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 08.04.2023 decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1, which was again assailed in appeal before the Appellate Court, whereafter hearing the parties, the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023 upheld the judgment of Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. Heard. Record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. There are concurrent findings of facts, duly drawn by the trial and appellate courts after thorough scrutiny and appraisal of evidence, which cannot be meddled with by reappraisal of the evidence, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The apex Court in the case of the "M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari" (2023 SCMR 1434) held that Article 199 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. It was also held that if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petition against order of the appellate court, it would open floodgates of litigation, thus, it closure is essential for fair and efficient legal system, therefore, once a matter has been adjudicated on facts by the trial and appellate courts, the High Court should not re -evaluate the facts or substitute the findings of the appellate court with its findings, henceforth, it is essential to achieve closure in legal proceedings and prevent unnecessary litigation. For ready reference, relevant para Nos.6 and 7 of the M. Hammad's case supra are reproduced hereunder; "6. The objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case. However, it is emphasized that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re -examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. Its role is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and procedural improprieties, ensuring the proper administration of justice. In the present case, the Petitioner pursued his case through the family court and its appeal in the district court and then also invoked the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to reargue his case amounting to a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction whereby the High Court upheld the factual findings of appellate court after making its own assessments on the same. Allowing a re - argument of the case constituted to arguing a second appeal which should not have been entertained regardless of the outcome of the case. 7. The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so. In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered final on the facts and it is not for High Court to offer another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases where the legislature's intent to not prolong the dispute is clear. The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes. However, if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate court orders, under Article 199 of the Constitution, it opens floodgates to appellate litigation. Closure of litigation is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law. Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by re -evaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court's opinion with their own - the acceptance of finality of the appellate court's findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanisms."

6. Undeniably, respondent No.1 has successfully established the entitlement of maintenance for minor Izhar Khan, which has rightly been decreed for being reasonable, whereas on the contrary, the petitioner has failed to rebut the claim through any tangible evidence.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition being bereft of merits is dismissed with no order as to cost. SA/102/Bal. Petition dismissed.