2026 PLP 786 (YLR)

Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J.

The captioned appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge/Empowered as Judge Family Court Fatehpur Thakyala dated 15.11.2021, whereby suit filed by appellant herein for payment for maintenance allowance has been dismissed for want of proof, whereas counter suit filed by respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed. Precise facts necessary for disposal of instant appeal are, Gulshan Bibi, appellant herein filed a suit for payment of maintenance allowance against Ejaz Mehmood, respondent herein in the Court of Civil Judge/Empowered as Judge Family Court Fatehpur Thakyala wherein it was stated that plaintiff as married to defendant on 16.03.2011 for the consideration of dower of Rs. 1,10,000/- in shape of gold ornaments. It was contended that plaintiff is serving as Health Worker in the Health Department. It was further claimed that behavior of defendant was not decent and appropriate with the plaintiff from the first day of her marriage. After Nikkah, plaintiff remained populated with defendant till the month of August 2014 but during said period, defendant tortured her physically, snatched salary from her and also took Rs. 25000/- from the plaintiff to purchase motorcycle, forcefully obtained expenses of visa and ticket for Saudi Arabia, defendant broke her mobile phone, tore register of official record by showing dagger at night succeeded to take money from the plaintiff and threatened her to dire consequences if she told his maltreatment to her parents. It was also stated that due to job of the plaintiff, defendant was used to taunt, blame her and demanded to resign. It was submitted that in the month of August 2014 when she was living in the house of her parents defendant came there and misbehaved with her parents and also abused. It was contended that defendant did not pay any maintenance to the plaintiff since August 2014. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein claim of the plaintiff was refuted by stated that he never maltreated the plaintiff rather she left his house without any reason. Ejaz Mehmood also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights appellant herein in the same court. The learned Judge Family Court consolidated both the suits, framed issues in the light of pleadings of the parties, provided them opportunity to lead evidence, heard pro and contra and at conclusion of the proceedings dismissed the suit filed by appellant herein for payment of maintenance allowance whereas decreed the counter suit filed by respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021, hence the captioned appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that plaintiff by producing convincing and reliable evidence substantiated that she left the house of defendant due to maltreatment on the part of defendant but the Court below miserably failed to appreciate the relevant evidence in its true perspective and wrongly dismissed the suit filed for payment of maintenance for want of proof. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that it is admitted by plaintiff as well as witnesses produced by her that at the time of desertion of plaintiff, defendant was abroad, thus the question of maltreatment does not arise, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be sustained. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution. The plaintiff in order to prove her claim produced Muhammad Hafeez who deposed that defendant came to the house of parents of plaintiff to take her back but when they asked him that today there are guests in their house, so he may come on some other day, defendant started abusing he further deposed that defendant never paid maintenance, during population period the relation between the spouses were not cordial and defendant was also used to abuse his in-laws. He further stated that defendant did not beat plaintiff in his presence but insulted her. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: The plaintiff also produced Muhammad Iqbal as witness who deposed that defendant is a person of a harsh behavior who never respected his in-laws and plaintiff remained deserted more than the populated period. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: The other witness produced by plaintiff namely Nazar Muhammad deposed in his statement that defendant tortured the plaintiff. He also stated that defendant also abused his in law. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: Plaintiff also recorded her statement and amply endorsed the allegation levelled in the plaint that defendant tortured her physically and mentally. Muhammad Maroof, witness of the plaintiff also supported the claim of the plaintiff. Maqbool Hussain witness of defendant admitted that the spouses were used to quarrel by deposing that he did not know the reason of quarrel between the spouses, thus in my considered view the plaintiff has amply proved mental as well as physical torture on behalf of defendant. If a wife is forced to leave the house of her husband either due to physical or mental torture, she cannot be held disobedient but only if she left the house of her husband sine any reason then is not entitled to get any maintenance and only in such situation the husband cannot be ordered to provide her maintenance till she populates with him. As stated above in the instant case, the plaintiff has successfully substantiated that she left the house of defendant many times due to his torture but was resettled on the assurance that she will not be tortured and shall be provided proper maintenance but despite that defendant did not change his behavior which forced her to leave the house. It is also proved from the evidence that defendant was used to disrespect and abuse his in-laws which also amounts to a mental torture to the wife, hence the plaintiff was entitled to get the maintenance allowance but the Court below failed to appreciate the relevant ticklish evidence in its true perspective and wrongly dismissed the suit filed by appellant herein. It is also relevant to mark that the plaintiff has claimed maintenance from the month of August 2014 without any specific amount however, it is an admitted position that though she was deserted in the year August 2014 but thereafter she again populated with the plaintiff and lastly she left the house of defendant in the month of October 2018 which fact is also admitted by defendant therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance from the month of October 2018. It is pertinent to note that it is an admitted position that defendant is a healthy person and works as a welder, thus keeping in view the financial condition of defendant, Rs. 3000/- is justified to fix as maintenance of plaintiff. As for as suit filed for restitution of conjugal rights is concerned, though till date the defendant is wife of plaintiff but she left house of plaintiff due to mal-treatment, hence, cannot be ordered to live with husband who used to torture her. The torture on behalf of plaintiff has been proved, hence, it cannot be held that he is sincere to populate her, thus, the suit filed by plaintiff/husband for restitution of conjugal rights is liable to be dropped. The crux and epitome of the above debate is, the appeal filed by appellant is hereby accepted, she is declared entitled to get the maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- per month from defendant from the month of October, 2018, which shall increase 10% per annum from the date of this Judgment, till she remains the wedded wife of defendant/respondent whereas the counter suit filed by respondent, herein, for restitution of conjugal rights is hereby dropped for want of proof. MQ/8/AJKHC Appeal allowed.