2008 PLP 590 (CLC)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner/defendant stating that she belonged to a respectable family and was a graduate; she used to hire a taxi for the purposes of commuting' to the examination center, which was driven by Sher Muhammad, the father of the petitioner; it was during one of these journeys that said Sher Muhammad made a proposal to the respondent No.1/plaintiff for marriage to his son/petitioner. She refused. But on the day she was to appear in the Islamiat examination, Sher Muhammad, the petitioner and some others forcibly abducted her and forced her into a Nikah with the petitioner/defendant. Thereafter she remained in unholy matrimony with the petitioner, but upon first available opportunity informed, her family of her ordeal, upon reaching the safe heavens, she narrated her ordeal and in these circumstances filed the present suit for jactitation of marriage pleading coercion, undue influence and harassment.

2. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement submitting that the respondent No.1 was his lawfully wedded wife, she was a graduate, married of her own choice, remained with him as his wife, performed matrimonial obligations and it was on inducement of her family members that she filed the present suit. The petitioner made efforts for her return but could not succeed.

3. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 also filed an F.I.R. against the petitioner and others for this criminal act and proceedings in this context are pending.

4. The Family Court framed issues; the parties were put to trial, and the suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an appeal, which, after contest, was dismissed and, therefore, the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is sui juris, a graduate and married of her own choice; and free will; valid Nikahnama is on record, she also made a statement before a Magistrate affirming this position, while filing a complaint, presumption of truth is attached to the same and this alone is enough for dismissal of the suit for jactitation. He also adverted to the contents of the plaint especially ground (c) and the prayer wherein it has been asserted that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has developed hatred for the petitioner and, therefore, is not willing to live with him while a similar prayer has been made in the prayer paragraph. The learned counsel lastly contended that the provisions of Order XVIII, C.P.C. have not been complied as evidence was got recorded by the Reader and not the Court himself, so this also vitiates trial.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 controverted the assertions and reiterated the contents of the impugned judgment as well the judgment of the Family Court. He emphatically submitted that the petitioner seeks reappraisal of the evidence and de novo inquiry into the controversial facts, which is not possible in the present jurisdiction. He also submitted that alternate pleas are not barred in law; the respondent No.1 narrated her ordeal and the reason for entering into the forcible Nikah, which was not voluntary, but a result of coercion and, undue influence; therefore, no sanctity can be attached to it. He lastly prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Family Court.

8. It is clear from record that copy of the disputed Nikahnama is on record as Exh.D.7. It also is correct a complaint was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 wherein she made a statement affirming her marriage, it is on record as Exh.D.6. The evidence, tendered, has been minutely dissected and perused concurrently by both the Courts below. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has stated in categorical terms that Nikah was not performed with her free will. Reappraisal of evidence or de novo inquiry into a factual controversy cannot be undertaken, in the present jurisdiction, especially when no specific illegality has been pointed out, therefore; the findings are unexceptionable. As far as the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the fulfilment of requirements of Order XVIII, C.P.C. is concerned, the impugned judgment takes care of the same, as the learned District Judge, while dismissing the appeal has adverted to this aspect and held that the handwriting being adverted to as that of the Reader is not substantiated by any material evidence, presumption of truth is attached to judicial proceedings and the same have been signed by the Family Court. Therefore, the matter does not fall within the mischief of Order XVIII, C.P.C., this objection too is overruled.

9. Resultantly this petition has no merits and is, therefore, dismissed. M.H./M-633/L Petition dismissed.