IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

CP S 08 of 2022                   :           Muhammad Ali Soomro vs.

Mst. Sakina&Others

 

For the Petitioner                 :           Mr. Tufail Ahmed Kumbhar, Advocate

                                               

Date of hearing                    :           14.01.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           14.01.2022

 

JUDGMENT

 

Agha Faisal, J.         (1) Granted. (2) Deferred. (3) Granted, subject to all just exceptions. (4) Petitioner has impugned judgments and decrees passed by the respective Courts whereby the pertinent family suit was decreed and appeal there against was disposed of.

 

2.            Briefly stated, vide judgment dated 09.09.2021 the learned 1st Civil Judge / Family Judge, Khairpur Nathan Shah had decreed the family suit directing that the defendant shall pay past maintenance in respect of his three daughters and future maintenance till they get married, with an annual increment in the manner stated therein. In appeal, vide judgment dated 06.12.2021 the learned District Judge, Dadu, maintained the judgment and decree in essence, however, reduced the future maintenance awarded from Rs.5000/- to Rs.4000/-. Petitioner’s counsel claims to be aggrieved by both these judgments, hence, this petition.

 

3.            At the very outset, learned counsel was confronted with the issue that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not a statutory forum of appeal and interference is merited only inter alia if the orders impugned are found to be without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, malafide and/or suffering from any manifest illegality. Learned counsel was specifically queried if there was any such infirmity in the impugned judgments and he responded in the negative.

 

4.            The ambit of constitutional petition is not that of yet another forum of appeal and is restrictedinter 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 supervisoryforum 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.            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 NaheedNusrat 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.