1990CLC917 (PLP)

‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Post trial efforts for reconciliation, Court's failure to make ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Wife seeking dissolution of marriage had expressed in her evidence unequivocal determined disinclination for her husband and was not prepared to rejoin him‑‑ Children which could otherwise have served as a uniting factor also did not succeed to bring spouses together‑‑‑Court after close of evidence had not made efforts for reconciliation between parties‑‑‑Held, it was mere irregularity on part of Trial Court which could not affect decision of Court on merits. (c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (Viii or 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Khula‑‑‑Wife, seeking dissolution of marriage insisted on divorce and was snot prepared under any circumstances to live with her husband as his wife and there were no prospects for reconciliation between them as hatred between spouses was deep rooted‑‑‑Case, held, was fit for grant of Khula divorce to wife. Tahir Qureshi for Petitioner. Inam Ullah Khan for Respondent No.1. By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, Daulat Ali petitioner who was defendant in the trial Court seeks to challenge judgment dated 22‑6‑1989 of Judge Family Court, Narowal decreeing Khula divorce to Shagufta Rani respondent No.l. Daulat Ali was married to Shagufta Rani on 23 9‑1983. From this marriage, two daughters were born to them. They are living with the mother. Though the parties had children, yet for some unfortunate events to which reference has been made in the plaint, they could not pull on well and live a happy matrimonial life. In result, respondent No.1 left the house of her husband and took up residence with her parents. She also took children with her. Seeing no prospects for reconciliation, she approached the Court to seek divorce from the petitioner. It was averred that petitioner had developed illegitimate relations with his brother's wife and on the objection raised, maltreated respondent No.1 and even gave actual beatings. It was also averred that petitioner was a heroin addict and had neglected to pay maintenance for a period of 2‑1/2 years to respondent No.1. Petitioner denied the averments in the plaint and stated that a year before, respondent No.1 had left his house on her own to attend a marriage ceremony and had also removed valuables belonging to him. At the pre trial hearing, trial Court attempted at reconciliation between the parties but it bore no useful results. Thereafter, trial Court settled necessary issues for determination and adjourned the case for recording of evidence by the parties. Plaintiff concluded her evidence on 6‑2‑1989. Thereafter, suit was adjourned more than once to enable the defendant/petitioner to produce his evidence. He failed. Consequently, Court closed his defence on 22‑6‑1989 and upon examination of the material brought on File by the plaintiff‑respondent No.1, gave Khula divorce to her. This decision has been challenged by the petitioner. Three points, were urged. (1) Trial Court could not have justifiably closed petitioner's evidence. (2) After close of evidence, trial Court made no efforts for a compromise or reconciliation between the parties. Section 12(1) of the Family Courts Act is mandatory. Its non‑compliance vitiates the judgment. (3) Existing evidence did not justify grant of Khula divorce. Upon hearing learned counsel and examination of available records, I see no substance in the contentions. Record indicated enough opportunity to the petitioner to lead his defence. Provisions in Family Courts Act are aimed at quick settlement of family disputes. In view of their peculiar nature and effect6on family life, these disputes cannot be permitted to drag on and suffer unnecessary long delays. Argument that petitioner was condemned unheard and had not been afforded adequate opportunity carried no substance in it: There was no justification for not producing the evidence on the date fixed for recording it. On the records, Court appears to have acted rightly in closing the petitioner's evidence and refusing to adjourn the case further for him to lead his evidence. As for the second point, suffice it to say that it was a mere irregularity which did not affect the decision on merits. From the tenor of the proceedings and what was stated in evidence by respondent No.1, efforts for reconciliation at post‑trial would have been a mere formality. From the evidence, it appears that respondent was not prepared to rejoin the petitioner. She expressed her unequivocal g determined disinclination for the petitioner. Presence of children which could otherwise have served as a uniting factor also did not succeed to bring them together. Much before the commencement of litigation, parties were living separately. Respondent No.1 claimed maintenance for herself and for minor children and filed a suit against the petitioner. Family Court awarded maintenance at the stated rate to two minor daughters but dismissed the claim of respondent No.1. Copy of the judgment in the maintenance suit is not on record. Court litigation also contributed to already existing bitter relationship between the parties. Passage of time could not bridge their differences. Respondent No.1 insisted on divorce and was not prepared under any circumstances to live with the petitioner as his wife. Marriage between them appears to have irretrievably broken down. There are no prospects for reconciliation between them. Hatred C between them is deep rooted. In the existing circumstances, it shall be of no use to compel the parties to live together as husband and wife in an atmosphere surcharged with mutual distrust and dislike. When such are the circumstances, it is better to separate to enable the parties to chalk out a fresh programme in life. Since defendant‑petitioner gave no evidence to rebut what was stated against him in evidence produced by respondent No.1 no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment which proceeds on correct analysis of the evidence and suffered from no misapplication of law. It was fit case for grant of Khula divorce to respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere. Writ petition being without merits is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./D‑49/L Petition dismissed.