1993 PLP 263 (MLD)

Through the instant petition the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree, dated 15‑4‑1992 passed by the learned Judge Family Court dissolving the petitioner's marriage with respondent No.1 on the ground of Khula.

2. The petitioner's learned counsel has primarily urged that the decree of Khula could not be granted without directing the wife to return the marriage benefits received by her including the expenses incurred on the marriage. He urged that Muhammad Musa, petitioner had stated as D.W.1 that he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000 on the marriage ceremony. In support of his contention he places reliance on the case of Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Babu Muhammad Amin P L D 1967 SC 97.

3. Mst. Nahida Mai had stated before the trial Court, while appearing as P.W.1 that the petitioner had contracted two marriages earlier and that he used to level allegations of immorality against her. She further stated that once the petitioner had injured her with a hatchet blow. She emphatically stated that she could not live with the petitioner on any condition as she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of the petitioner.

4. The above assertions fairly indicate the deep‑rooted enmity in the heart of respondent No.1, against the petitioner. The petitioner also admitted that hatred had been created in the heart of respondent No.1 against him. So far as the return of marriage benefits is concerned, there is no cogent material to show that the petitioner had conferred any valuable benefits on respondent No.1 during subsistence of their marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that Sher Muhammad D.W.2 had stated that father of Mst. Nahida respondent No.1 had received a sum of Rs.15,000 for marriage expenses. Strangely enough, the petitioner did not say so in his own statement. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Sher Muhammad D.W.2. The petitioner merely stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000 on the marriage ceremony. The bald statement of the petitioner regarding the amount spent by him on the marriage ceremony cannot be accepted in the absence of any other reliable material to substantiate the same. Moreover, according to Ain‑al‑Hidaya Vol. II, Babul Khula page 269 (at page 270) it is abominable on the part of the husband to have more than the dower amount in case of separation by Khula, yet if he insists it is permissible for him to seek return of gifts given to the wife on marriage. He could not generally claim that on the marriage ceremonies he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000 or more and that Khula be made contingent upon the return of the said amount. Such a view would frustrate the right of a Muslim woman to claim Khula. Now‑a‑days marriage expenses run into lacs of rupees due to a number of unnecessary social and customary marriage practices which, otherwise, are divorced from the teachings of Islam. Hence, a Muslim husband may voluntarily spend lacs of rupees on marriage ceremonies but in case of a rift and claim of separation through Khula by the wife, cannot demand return of the, amount voluntarily spent by him on the marriage ceremonies.

5. The judgment in Khurshid Bibi's case is of no help to the petitioner regarding his claim for all kinds of marriage expenses. In the said precedent it was held that the petitioner could only claim return of marriage gifts given to the wife. For that reason, the Supreme Court had remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that the parties be permitted to lead evidence as to what gifts, if any, and of what value were given by the husband to the wife on the occasion of marriage.

6. In the present case, the petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that he had given certain gifts to his wife at the time of marriage. Despite that, the trial Court granted Khula on the condition that respondent No.1 shall not claim her dower amount from the petitioner which included ornaments weighing one Tola and one Pucca room built on 5 Marlas' plot. Hence it was sufficient consideration for grant of the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula.

7. I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. AA./M‑704/L Petition dismissed.