1999 PLP 1 (CLC)

This writ petition is filed to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 19‑5-1998 passed by Ch. Badar‑ud‑Din, learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore, whereby he granted decree for dissolution of marriage to respondent No. l in a suit for dissolution of marriage filed against the petitioner/defendant on the grounds of cruelty, non‑maintenance and Khula.

2. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion after taking into account the evidence brought by the parties at the trial that the plaintiff is not ready to live with the defendant as his wife at any cost; that pre‑trial and post‑trial proceedings for reconciliation have already failed as the parties could not arrive at any compromise although the suit was pending since 1996. As such the marriage of the parties was dissolved on the basis of Khula with the condition that the plaintiff/respondent No. l shall forego her maintenance.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to mention in his finding that it was impossible for the parties to observe the limits of God before dissolving the marriage on the principle of Khula'. Like wise the learned trial Judge did not discuss the evidence of the parties in verbatim before coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent had developed insurmountable grudge against the petitioner/defendant. The non -discussion of the evidence has allegedly prejudiced the petitioner/defendant and as such the impugned judgment and decree has no value in the eyes of law.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the learned trial Judge has mentioned while discussing on Issues Nos. l to 3 the names of witnesses examined by the parties and has also observed that he had gone through the aforesaid evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Judge also observed that the plaintiff while appearing as P.W.2 has levelled serious allegations against defendant and had concluded that she was not ready to live with the defendant as his wife, at any cost. Hence, after taking into account the aforesaid evidence and the conduct of parties, the learned trial Judge concluded that there was no possibility of reunion between the parties as it had become impossible for them to live amicably as husband and wife within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty. This observation of the learned trial Judge provides complete answer to the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has not made observation that it was difficult for the parties to observe the limits of God. The mere fact that the plaintiff did not so mention in her statement would remain immaterial particularly when her statement as a whole would lead to a conclusion that it had become impossible for the spouses to live together end observe the limits of God.

5. In order to satisfy myself I have gone through the evidence examined by the parties at the trial. The statement of P.W.1 Muhammad Nazir is clear enough to show that although the parties were married about two years prior to his evidence, they lived together happily for 2 or 2‑1/2 months whereafter they started quarrelling with each other. The bone of contention was that 'the petitioner used to beat the respondent wife under the influence of intoxication. This led her to leave her house and shift over to her parents. Two/three attempts were made as the wife was sent to the house of petitioner/husband but on all tire occasions she was turned out by the petitioner/defendant after quarrelling with her. She was allegedly living with her parents deserted life for about two years during which she was not maintained. The witness, was cross‑examined at length, but the fact remained that according to him parties were not ready to live together on account of frequent quarrels between them. The plaintiff/respondent herself appeared as P.W.2 and stated that she remained in the house of petitioner/defendant for about 9 months, but during that period she was given beatings and treated with cruelty. She added that petitioner/defendant was a gambler and would return to house late in the night and after taking sleeping pills would start beating her. Ultimately he threw her house‑hold articles out of the house and she went to the house of her parents. She also added during her statement that petitioner/defendant failed to maintain her and also compelled her to mix up with strangers, but when she refused to do so, she was threatened that her face would be burnt by throwing acid on her. As such she stated that she was not willing to live with the petitioner/defendant at any cost. She was also subjected to lengthy cross‑examination, but it could not bring out anything which would favour the petitioner/defendant to say that the respondent/plaintiff was on the wrong path. The petitioner/defendant examined Syed Munawar Ali as D.W.1, Haji Nawab Khan as D.W.2, Mst. Razia as D.W.3 and himself as D.W.4, but that did not dislodge the testimony of the respondent/plaintiff. In such a situation, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that it had become impossible for the parties to observe the limits of God would remain unexceptionable. The petitioner has not been able to make out any case so as to attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑760/L Petition dismissed