988 PLP 1637 (CLC)

Writ Petition No. 1176 of 1982, decided on 31st March, 1982. ‑‑‑S. 2(ii) & (iv)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.31‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction against dissolution of marriage‑‑Exercise of‑‑Contention of petitioner that judgment of Appellate Court did not conform to provisions of Order XLI, R.31, not borne out by perusal of judgment Appellate Court gave its findings supported by reasons on points for determination after discussing and appreciating evidence of parties‑ Findings of fact recorded by Court, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction, especially when same were not shown to be based on misreading of evidence‑‑Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances. Q.M. Salim for Petitioner. This writ petition impugns the legality of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, respondent 2, dated the 5th December, 1981, accepting respondent 1's appeal against and reversing the decision of the learned Judge, Family Court, Toba Tek Singh, dated the 21st May, 1980, whereby respondent 1's suit for dissolution of marriage was dismissed.

2. Muhammad alias Haman, petitioner, married Mst. Sadden, respondent 1, about 22 years back. Two sons, aged' 18 and 15 years, were born during the wedlock. On the 12th October, 1977, respondent 1 instituted suit to get her marriage with the petitioner dissolved on the grounds that he had treated her with habitual cruelty, that he had failed to provide her maintenance for more than two years, that he had not performed marital obligations towards her for more than three vears, that he had levelled false, charge of adultery against her, that he had prevented her from exercising control over her belongings and that she was entitled to Khula. The petitioner filed counter‑suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her. Both the suits were consolidated and disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court, Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner's suit was decreed whereas respondent 1's suit was dismissed. However, in appeal the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, reversing the findings of the learned trial Judge on the issues touching the petitioner's failure to provide maintenance to and perform marital obligations towards respondent 1, decreed respondent is suit for dissolution of marriage. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge did not touch the evidence to formulate his decision and that his judgment did not conform to the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not borne out by the perusal of the judgment. After discussing and appreciating evidence of the parties he gave his decision, supported with reasons, on the points for determination. The finding of fact recorded by him cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction especially when it has not been shown to be based on misreading of evidence. This petition is without any force and is consequently dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑777/L Petition dismissed.