1998CLC625 (PLP)

1985 CLC 2539; PLD 1986 Quetta 185 and 1989 MLD 2227 ref. Ch. Muhammad Irfan for Petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 27‑2‑1997 passed by Haji Ahmad, learned Judge Family Court, Islamabad, whereby, the marriage between the parties was dissolved on a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No. l against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Judge has misapplied the principle of ' khula' without exploring the possibility that the parties could live together as husband and wife. It was further contended that the marriage could not be dissolved on the basis of ' khula' only on the ground that the wife had stated that she was not ready to live with her husband. In the instant case, the wife i.e., respondent No. l stated that she was not prepared to live with the petitioner and as such, that ground was not enough to grant her a decree for dissolution of marriage. Lastly, it was contended that there was nothing on record to show that the parties could not live amicably or that it was not possible for them to observe the limits prescribed by' God. As such, it was argued that the right of ' khula' was not absolute and no blanket authority was given to the wife for automatically denouncing the marital bond. The Court must have complete satisfaction on proved facts and circumstances that there existed disliking or hatred of the nature which would result in serious disharmony and incompatibility of temperaments leaving no chance whatsoever for the parties to live together within the limits of 'Shariah'. Reliance was placed on 1985 CLC 2539 Lahore, PLD 1986 Quetta 185 and 1989 MLD 2227.

3. I have considered the foregoing submissions. It is true that right of khula' should not be allowed to be exercised by the wife against the husband only because she does not want to live with him nor it would justify that she may be granted dissolution of marriage on her passing whims. The Court has to see that there is genuine disagreement between the parties due to which they cannot continue happy and harmonious marital life. As such, each case has to be decided on its own merits in the light of the evidence brought on record. In this case, the wife has clearly stated that it is not possible for her to live with the husband under any circumstance because he had been subjecting her to severe mental torture while she was in his house. She also added that she had tried her utmost that the petitioner may correct himself but it was all in vain. On the contrary, she was dragged into litigation as the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Karachi, thereby adding to her mental torture. It was in that situation that the learned trial Judge Family Court came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the parties to observe the limits prescribed by God. While coming. to that conclusion, the learned trial Judge also mentioned about several efforts which were made in the Court for reconciliation between the parties but it all ended in failure. It is, thus, obvious that there was no mis‑reading or non‑reading of the evidence by the trial Court nor it acted in fanciful manner while deciding the case under discussion. On the contrary, it follows that the learned trial Court also tried for patch up between the parties during trial but without any success. It was, therefore, decided to grant decree for dissolution of marriage to the respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband for the consideration that the wife' would not be entitled to receive the dower money of Rs.50,000 fixed at the time of ' Nikah' between them.

4. There is no latent or‑patent defect in the impugned judgment and decree so as to call for any interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./R‑37/L??? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.