AJK Family Courts Procedure Rules 1998

  1. —rule 3—institution of family suit—jurisdiction of the Court under rule 3 of the AJ&K Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998, a plaint under sub section (1) of section 7, could be instituted before the Court having jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the said Rules. Noreen Bibi & another v. Tariq Aziz 2020 SCR 798 (A)
  2. —Rule 4, sub rule (a) and  proviso to sub rule (b)— jurisdiction of the Family Court—the suit for maintenance of minor was  filed in another city where mother was living with minor and  her husband after contracting second marriage—under proviso attached to the sub rule (b)  the suit  for dissolution of marriage or recovery of dower could only be instituted in local limits of the Court where the wife ordinarily resides—under sub rule (b) the other suits can be instituted where the cause of action wholly or in partly has arisen. Admittedly, the mother in this case belonged to District Hattian where the Nikah was performed but after that she had contracted second marriage at Mirpur. Held:  It cannot be said that the cause of action has not arisen partly for the purpose of filing the maintenance suit within the local limits of Family Court Mirpur. The minor son is also living with her and until his custody is not given to the father, it cannot be said that he has any independent place of abode. In the present case, the suit has been filed on his behalf through his mother, therefore, the Family Court Mirpur had the jurisdiction. Noreen Bibi & another v. Tariq Aziz 2020 SCR 798 (B)                  —-Rule 4 (a) and (b)—jurisdiction of Family Courts—- two provisions i.e. clause (a) and (b) of rule 4 postulate different positions. The clause (a) relates to the suits where the cause of action wholly or partly arises whereas, the second category of the suit enumerated in the clause (b) would be necessarily instituted in the Court mentioned thereunder. Noreen Bibi & another v. Tariq Aziz 2020 SCR 798 (C)
  3. R. 13 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act (XI of 1993), R.5. Naveed Farid v. Raheela Razzaq 2012 SCR 341
  4. R. 13 — To set aside ex parte decree — Limitation — The limitation for filing application to set aside ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of decree. Muhammad Iqbal Khan and another v. Parveen Shakir  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 85 (B)
  5. R. 13 — AJK Family Courts Act, 1993 — Limitation Act, 1908 — Two suits for payment of dower and for maintenance of charges for Iddat — Ex parte decree — Appellants filed an application for setting aside said ex parte decree on ground that they were not duly served upon — Family Court dismissed such application being time-barred — Shariat Court dismissed appeal —Validity — An application for setting aside ex parte was to be filed within thirty days from the date of decree — Family Courts Act is special law, provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 are not applicable being general in nature — Civil appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. FAMILY COURT —(Setting aside ex parte decree) Application for setting aside ex parte decree in a suit for payment of dower was dismissed by Family Court which determination was upheld by Shariat Court. Supreme Court dismissed appeal. M. Iqbal Khan and another v. Parveen Shakir 2013 SCR 85 (C)
  6. — Rule 13—application for setting-aside—ex-parte decree—limitation—for filing of—30 days-—the petitioners had to file an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree before the trial Court within 30 days but they failed to approach the proper forum within prescribed period of limitation. Syed Kafiat Husssain & another v. Syeda Khidja Kazmi & others 2017 SCR 999 (B)
  7. —Rule 13—the limitation for filing of application for setting aside exparte decree is 30 days, from the date of decree or decision–application barred by 1 month and 21days—no application for condonation of delay—not maintainable. Samia Akram Versus Muhammad Imran 2021 SCR 370 (A&B)  2012 SCR 341 & 2013 SCR 85 ref.
  8. —Rule 13—limitation for filing an application for setting aside the exparte decree is 30 days from the date of decree or decision–application barred by 4 months and 12 days—rightly dismissed.   Allah Ditta Versus Navila Akhtar & 3 others 2021 SCR 387 (A, B & C) 2012 SCR 341 & 2013 SCR 85 rel.
  9. —Rule 13—Section 13—computation of limitation— the time during which the plaintiff or the defendant has been absent from Pakistan, shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Arshid Mehmood v. Yasmin Arshid 2019 SCR 210 (A/1) 2015 SCR 1384 rel 
  10.  — Rule 13 — Ex-parte decree/decision — limitation for — limitation for filing application for setting-aside ex-parte decree is 30 days — Family Courts Act, 1993 is a special law which provides limitation for filing application for setting-aside ex-parte decree/proceedings under Rules, 1998 — no concept of condonation of delay u/r 13 — Rule lays down that ex-parte proceedings may, for sufficient cause, be set-aside on the application made within 30 days — limitation for setting-aside ex-parte decree is 30 days from the date of decree and not from the date of knowledge — held: in presence of clear provision in the special law, the provisions are Limitation Act, are not applicable in the proceedings the Family Court. Adeeb Sadiq vs Shazia Bibi 2024 SCR 298 (A&B) 2012 SCR 341, 2013 SCR 85 & 2021 SCR 370 ref.
  11. —Section 14(5)— appeal against judgment order or decree of the Shairat Court—only lies if Supreme Court grants Leave to Appeal—after being satisfied that substantial question of law of public importance involves— an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree or order of the Shariat Court shall lie only if the Supreme Court being satisfied, that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal. PLA dismissed. Syed Kafiat Husssain                 & another v. Syeda Khidja Kazmi & others 2017 SCR 999 (C)  1998 SCR 129 rel.
  12. Rule 22 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Procedure Rules 1998 read with section 17 of the Family Court Act, 1993 — Filing of appeals and accompanied mandatory documents — Rule 22 of AJ&K Family Court Procedure Rules and Rule 1 of Order XLI CPC distinguished — Section 17 provides that provisions of Qanun-e-Shadhat order 1984 and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Court Act those of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in the proceedings. Rule 22 of Family Court Procedure Rules, 1998 regulates the procedure of filing of appeal — the phraseology of the rule appears to be mandatory. The filing of copy of decree sheet and decision of the Court, where decree is passed, is mandatory and without attaching the same appeal cannot be filed. This provision is similar to that of Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. The marked difference between the two provisions is that the copy of judgment can be dispensed with by the Court but copy of decree sheet cannot be dispensed with under Order XLI 1 of CPC. Rule 22 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Procedure Rules, provides no such provision and filing of the copy of decree sheet and decision both are mandatory. Rashida Bibi v. M. Nazir & another 2010 SCR 369 (B) 2000 SCR 419 rel.
  13. Rules 22 — AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993 — section 14 — appeal to the Shariat Court — limitation — delay — condonation of — under Rule 22 appeal in the light of the provisions of S.14 shall be preferred within a period of 30 days of passing of the decree or decision excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copies — under proviso to the rule the appellate Court may for sufficient cause extend the period of limitation — The proviso carves out a special situation from the main provision — The main provision provides  the appeal to be filed within a period of 30 days but the proviso has vested the power in the Court that it may extend the time for sufficient cause. Saleem Akbar Kayani versus Dr. Rehana Mansha Kayani & 4 others 2016 SCR 1 (A)  
error: Content is protected !!