1995 PLP 1095 (MLD)

(2) Whether the defendant has not paid the maintenance to the plaintiff? (3) Whether the defendant has forced the plaintiff to lead immoral life? (4) Whether the plaintiff is an addict person? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula? If so, on what terms and conditions? (6) Whether suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement? (7) Relief. The evidence of the parties was recorded and thereafter the Judge, Family Court decreed the suit holding that "the parties to the suit are living separately for the last about three years and plaintiff has not joined the defendant even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In my view there is no hope for reunion of the parties. The parties cannot maintain the limits of God Almighty so it will be better to dissolve the marriage on ground

3. Pre‑admission notice was issued to respondent at the request of learned counsel for petitioner if there could be any possibility of rapprochement and in pursuance of that Mst. Surayya Bibi respondent is present alongwith her father. She made a statement that there is no possibility of any compromise with the petitioner.

4. It is in the evidence of respondent as P.W.1 that there are two minors out of the wed‑lock and petitioner deserted her after inflicting beatings. It is also stated that under no circumstances she can live with the petitioner as she apprehends danger to her life. She was cross‑examined and allegations against petitioner were repeated. There is also statement of petitioner as D.W.1 who candidly conceded in cross‑examination that respondent was staying with her parents for the last three years. He further stated that at one time he was going to be killed by the parents of respondent. Petitioner also stated in the cross -examination as to the stern attitude of the parents that they will kill the respondent but not allow her to stay with him. It is also stated that in spite of best efforts, he was not able to bring his wife from her parents' house.

5. If one deeply examines the cross‑examination of respondent, the enmity between the parties has heightened to such an extent that there is no possibility of any amicable settlement between them and in these circumstances, there is no point in compelling the respondent to live with the petitioner. It appears that learned Judge Family Court was satisfied before passing the decree of divorce against the petitioner. For all the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. AA./M‑1956/L Petition dismissed.