1987 PLP 770 (MLD)

Khaliq Khalil Khan Jabran for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 27th January, 1987. This petition calls in question the validity of judgment and decree dated 20-7-1986 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby he maintained decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad on 13-3-1986 dissolving marriage of the respondent with the petitioner, in terms of the compromise reached between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there was confusion in the mind of the petitioner when marriage was agreed to be dissolved on statement of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further contended that the oath purportedly taken by Mst. Majidan Bibi was only symbolic in character as such the decree dissolving marriage between the spouses is void.

3. Mr. Khaliq Khalil Jabran, Advocate representing respondent No.l controverted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that there was to confusion at the time of the settlement of dispute between the parties. It was also submitted that the plaintiff /respondent made a statement on Holy Qur'an as agreed between the parties. It was wrong to assert that the plaintiff did not take oath as agreed between the parties.

4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. The statements of the parties recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court are unambiguous. The petitioner accepted the offer and the plaintiff accordingly took oath on Holy Qur'an. The learned Judge, Family Court, thereupon decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner probably wants to wriggle out of the agreement reached between the parties, before the Judge, Family Court because the decision has been pronounced against him. In Saleem Ahmad v. Khushi Muhammad 1974 S C M R 224 the Supreme Court observed:- "The High Court rejected both the contentions and held that there was no ground in law or in equity on which the petitioner could claim the right of resiling from the solemn agreement which was entered into by him. Such an agreement was in the nature of a contract and one of the contracting parties could not be allowed to back out of it, unless the contract was void or had become frustrated. None of these eventualities had occurred in this case." The dictum was followed by this Court in Mst. Janat Bibi v. Hafiz Maula Bakhsh and others (1984 C L C 368). Similarly in Ata Muhammad v. Mst. Sahib Khatoon and another 1981 C L C 565, this Court held that the provisions of sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, 1973 are applicable and the parties to the agreement estopped by conduct to challenge the decree based on the contract reached between them.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs. A.A./M-221/L Petition dismissed.