1993 PLP 1126 (CLC)

Muhammad Akhtar Mian for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1992. Through this Constitutional petition, Bashir Ahmad, petitioner, has challenged the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage dated 2‑10‑1991 passed in favour of respondent No.2 by the learned Judge Family Court on the ground of Khula`.

2. In, support of this writ petition only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that marriage could not have been dissolved on the ground of Khula` without return of the benefits which were received by the respondent No.2 in the shape of ornaments and in cash which was received by her father prior to the marriage. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Mst. Nasreen Akhter P.W.1 in her cross -examination admitted that the petitioner had given her ornaments wighing 8‑1/2 tolas at the time of Nikah and therefore without return of these ornaments or the value of the ornaments, the marriage could not have been dissolved. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of D.W.2 for the proposition that Rs.9,000 have been received by the father of the petitioner before the marriage, therefore, without return of this amount in addition to the ornaments, marriage could not have been dissolved on the ground of Khula`.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand has argued that respondent No.2 while appearing as witness as D.W.1 had categorically stated that all the ornaments and dowry are with the defendant petitioner and this portion of his statement has not been challenged in cross- examination, hence shall be deemed to have been admitted as correct. Learned counsel has contended that the statement of the respondent No.2 if read as whole clearly proves that nowhere it is admitted that the ornaments given at the time of marriage were in her possession. There is no other evidence from which it could be said that the ornaments are in possession of the respondent No.2. So far as the payment of Rs.9,000 to the father of the respondent No.2 is concerned firstly there is no lawful evidence to prove this payment and secondly the respondent No.2 cannot be held responsible for the payment of an amount which allegedly had been received by her father before or after marriage.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed by both the learned counsel for the parties and hold that there is absolutely no evidence on the record that respondent No.2 is in possession of ornaments given to her by the petitioner and therefore she is not obliged to return the same or value thereof. It is rather established that ornaments and dowry is still retained by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court which is based upon well considered reasoning and is quite in consonance ‑with the law declared on the subject which could attract the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. I find no legal infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed with costs throughout. A.A./B 71/L Petition dismissed. .