1989 PLP 4234 (MLD)

(b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)

S. 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Khula'--Court below recorded finding of fact that claim of husband regarding ornaments and other things against wife was false and bogus as husband had failed to adduce any documentary evidence for purchasing alleged ornaments--Such finding of fact supported by evidence on record and not suffering from any misreading or non reading of material evidence on record, held, was immune from interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner. Sardar Muneer Ahmad Gill for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the judgment and decree dated 20-12-19,9g passed by Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, Judge Family Court, Lahore, whereby he has dissolved. the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 on the basis of Khula. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the finding of the learned Judge Family Court on issues Nos. 8 and 9, which are to the effect whether the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has developed hatred against the petitioner, if so, whether she is entitled to get divorce on the ground of Khula and on what terms and conditions, is not borne out from record. I find no force in the contention of the petitioner. I have perused the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is in evidence that the petitioner made an assault on respondent No. 1 sometime in 1986 when she was attending a marriage in her village and was challaned by the police. He also assaulted her along with others on 18-8-1987 and a criminal case has been registered against him and thirteen others. Respondent No. 1 specifically deposed in her statement as PW 3 that she is unable to live with the petitioner under any circumstance. This being a family dispute notice was sent to respondent No. 1 at pre-admission stage as the learned counsel of the petitioner made a statement at the Bar that there were chances of reconciliation between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The parties appeared in the Court, but respondent No. 1 has reiterated her statement made at the trial that she has developed hatred against the petitioner as she cannot live with him under any circumstance. The learned Judge Family Court, also took the view after carefully scrutinising the evidence that the differences between the spouses were so deep rooted that it was impossible to unite them within the limits of God. This finding is based on cogent reasons. Learned counsel; for the petitioner has been unable to point out misreading or any flaw in the appreciation of evidence. 3. It is next contended that the petitioner successfully proved on record that respondent No. 1, while going to the house of her parents had taken with her golden ornaments, silky garments and net cash, but the learned Judge, Family Court, while deciding the suit has erred in holding that "the defendant is not entitled to anything from the plaintiff as compensation for her divorce on the principle of Khula'. The learned Judge, Family Court, however, recorded a finding of fact that the claim regarding ornaments and other things was fake and bogus as the petitioner has adduced no documentary evidence for purchasing the alleged ornaments. The inference drawn from evidence by the learned Judge Family Court, is to be considered as a finding of fact. This finding does not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of material evidence on record and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Judge Family Court, based on such inference, which is supported by evidence on record is immune from interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1517/L