1996 PLP 1527 (MLD)

Respondent No.3 Mushtaq Ahmed denied petitioner's allegations in his statement filed before the Family Court. He stated therein that petitioner's father Nizamuddin had accepted an amount of Rs.50,000 from him out of which he gave two tolas of gold ornaments and 5 pairs of clothes to the petitioner in marriage and misappropriated the remaining amount and that dowery articles were also taken away by petitioner along with her parents and one Ghulam Kadir at the time she left the house in his absence. Respondent pleaded that he is a technical man having Diploma of Associate Engineer in Electrical Technology and is serving as Sub‑Engineer at Gudu Thermal Power Station, Kashmore and is drawing pay of Rs.5;200 and is a respectable person of the locality. According to him petitioner had also taken away 8‑1/2 tolas of golden ornaments, ten pairs of clothes and Rs.40,000 in cash while leaving the house in his absence. In further pleas respondent claimed to reserve right to initiate civil and criminal proceedings against petitioner, her father and her mother and so? called uncle Ghulam Kadir for the recovery of the articles and cash Rs.40,

000. The respondent also asserted his right to recover Rs.50,000 from petitioner's father taken from him at the time of marriage. On the pleadings of the parties trial Court framed 8 issues, including Issue No.6 on lthe point of Khula. The petitioner examined herself and her father Nizamuddin while respondent examined himself, Khan Muhammad and Barkat Ali before the Family Court. The trial Court after discussing the evidence in detail dismissed the suit of petitioner opining that she had miserably failed to prove her case and is not entitled to Khula'. Appellate Court too dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the findings of the lower Court. Mr. Shaikh Abdul Kadir counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parya Ram Waswani for respondent No.3 advanced their arguments at length before me. Petitioner's counsel contended that both Courts below have not appreciated properly the evidence led by the petitioner and that the judgments are based on non‑appreciation and misreading of the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to the petitioner's counsel she has developed hatred against the respondent and it is impossible for her to live within the limits of God. The counsel states that the petitioner had clearly stated in her plaint and the statement that the respondent is a man of bad character and is a pimp, supplier of women and also used to supply his sisters to various persons and so many strangers used to visit his house. It is mentioned by her that her husband used to compel her to lead immoral life and on her refusal he used to maltreat her and on 20‑1‑1994 he brought strangers in his house and compelled her to have sexual intercourse with one of the strangers. Her counsel pointed out that she has stated all these things specifically in her deposition and this piece of evidence has gone unchallenged. She plainly refused to go back to the defendant and further urged that the petitioner and her father have categorically deposed that petitioner was expelled by respondent and was left at the house of her father's sister at Mirpur Mathelo from where she came to the house of her parents at Sukkur. Her father also supported the version of the petitioner before Family Court stating that the petitioner had told him about the respondent's character and his being pimp. Mr. Shaikh submitted that the respondent has failed to advance any evidence in rebuttal to the version of petitioner and has miserably failed to prove that any dowery articles including cash of Rs.40,000 were taken away by petitioner, her father and uncle Ghulam Kadir. According to the counsel the conciliation between the spouses failed at pre‑trial as well as post‑trial stage before the Family Court and also before the Appellate Court when on 20‑9‑1995 Additional District Judge called the petitioner end tried to bring conciliation in‑between the parties but the petitioner refused to join the company of respondent No. 3 at any cost. ?????? The right to ask for Khula' by a woman has been ordained in the Holy Quran and man and woman have been kept at equal footing in respect of divorce against each other. Petitioner's counsel, therefore, lastly urged that since the serious allegations in the form of evidence have been put forth by petitioner and her father against respondent which have created hatred in petitioner's mind against respondent and it will not be possible for them to live together within the limits of God. So, petitioner's claim for dissolving her marriage on Khula is proved. In support of his submissions petitioner's counsel has referred to the following cases:‑‑‑‑ (i) Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Razia Sultana PLD 1959 Lah. 287. (ii) Dr. Akhlaq Ahmed v. Mst. Kishwar Sultana and others PLD 1983 SC 169. (iii) Ghulam Mustafa v. Judge, Family Court and another 1991 CLC 2082. (iv) Mst.. Nasreen Bibi v. Atta Muhammad PLD 1994 Lah. 276. (v) Muhammad Anwar v. Nusrat Bibi NLR 1994 Civil

615. Mr. Parya Ram counsel for respondent Mushtaq Ahmed assailed the evidence of petitioner and her father Nizamuddin stating that petitioner 'has failed to prove her case on the ground including that of Khula', so the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence in refusing to dissolve marriage. He contended that the petitioner is not entitled to claim Khula' as a matter of right without satisfying the Court that the relations between the spouses were so strained that they could not live within the limits prescribed by God. Here the Courts below, on the evidence before them, are satisfied that she has failed to prove intense dislike or fixed aversion to live within the limits prescribed by Allah. In support he cited Aali v. Additional District Judge‑I, Quetta and another 1986 CLC 27 and requested to dismiss the petition: The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is well‑founded. It is well‑settled that if on the basis of material on the record for circumstances prevailing in the case the conscience of Court is satisfied that it will not be possible for the spouses to live together as a faithful union within the limits prescribed by God, they should be separated on the ground of Khula'. In the present case petitioner has proved her aversion raised in the plaint that respondent (her husband) is man of bad character, supplier of women and used to supply his unmarried sisters to the strangers and that he compelled her to lead an immoral life, and on 20‑1‑1994 she was compelled by him to have sexual intercourse with one of the strangers and on refusal she was given severe beating and then she was left at the house of her father's sister at Mirpur Mathelo. Not only this but she categorically stated in her evidence that she has developed hatred and dislike in her heart against respondent and it is impossible for her to live with him as wife within limits prescribed by God and she is prepared to relinquish dower amount of Rs.1,00,000 and other benefits. Respondent Mushtaq Ahmed has failed to shatter this piece of evidence though the petitioner has‑been sufficiently cross‑examined by respondent's counsel. P.W. Nizamuddin petitioner's father has confirmed that respondent used to bring strangers in his house and compelled petitioner to lead immoral life and on her refusal she was left at his sister's house at Mirpur Mathelo. The Court will have to consider their evidence whether the rift between the parties is of such a serious nature that the spouses will not observe the limits of God if allowed to remain together and on such a positive conclusion,' it is left with no discretion but to grant dissolution of marriage. Islam prefers divorce to adultery and if a wife owing to her aversion, hatred and dislike with the husband intends to get a divorce, she may obtain a decree of dissolution by giving up her dower and other benefits and such a decree is called Khula'. In the present case it is admitted at the trial by the parties that the dower was fixed at Rs.1,00,000 which was not paid to the petitioner as yet. Moreover, nothing more has been proved regarding the other benefits being obtained by petitioner from marriage. In the present case the parties, though educated, could not pull on together amicably right from the beginning. They separated within one month of their marriage and since then they are living separately for more than one year and could not reconcile. The petitioner's statement that her husband is a pimp and compelled her to lead immoral life supported by her father is not an ordinary thing to be ignored which has been discarded by the two Courts below without valid reasons. This sort of maligning is sufficient to come to a conclusion that petitioner has developed a fixed aversion of hatred and dislike in her heart against her husband and is sufficient reason to attract the conscience of the Court to conclude that the reunion will not be faithful. In case of Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Razia Sultana and others PLD 1995 Lah. 287 it has been held that even if wife omits to demand Khula', can be granted decree for Khula' if the conditions exist that in case a decree for dissolution of marriage is not granted it will give birth to a hateful union and the parties will not observe the limits prescribed by God. In case of Dr. Akhlaq Ahmed v. Mst. Kishwar Sultana and others PLD 1983 SC 169 Supreme Court has held the Court is entitled to form the opinion as regards Khula' after taking into consideration all the factors including how the parties had conducted themselves during the trial of the suit. In case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Judge, Family Court and another 1991 CLC 2082 marriage has been dissolved on the ground of Khula' where on the basis of material and circumstances in case conscience of Court was satisfied that it would not be possible for the parties to live together as husband and wife within the limits prescribed by Allah. In case Mst. Nasreen Bibi v. Atta Muhammad PLD 1994 Lah. 276 Khula' has been allowed and it is observed that wife is not supposed to give a logical, objective and sufficient reason for claiming Khula'. Wife would be entitled to Khula' in case fixed aversion is proved. In this authority cases of Mst. Bilqis Fatima v. Najam‑ul‑Ikram Qureshi PLD 1959 Lah. 566, Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Yasmin and another 1983 CLC 3098 and Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. ' Baboo Muhammad Amin PLD 1967 SC 97 are discussed and relied upon. Same view has been held in the case of Muhammad Anwar v. Nusrat Bibi NLR 1994 Civil

615. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Mushtaq Ahmed proceeded on distinct facts and grounds. The facts of cited case (Aali v. Additional District Judge‑I, Quetta and another, 1986 C L C 27) are that although Nikah was performed but Rukhsati had not taken place and spouses had never lived as husband and wife. For the foregoing discussion this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are declared to be null and void and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula' is decreed. Since the petitioner has relinquished the right of dower, which is admittedly not paid to her and the other benefits being not proved, the question of return of benefits to the respondent does not arise. Parties are left to bear their own costs. A. A./K‑1/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.