1994 PLP 1124 (SCMR)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 20‑4‑1992 whereby the learned Judge dismissed, summarily, Writ Petition No.194 of 1990 filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and , decree in a suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by respondent No.1, against the petitioner. The facts may be stated as under:‑‑ Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner claiming `Talaq' (divorce) or in the alternative `Khula'. She alleged before the trial Court that the defendant had been treating her in a cruel manner and had also levelled false charges of giving poison. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties reached the conclusion that the parties cannot live within the bonds prescribed by Almighty Allah. The trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit and dissolved the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner by way of `Khula". The petitioner challenged the above decision before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, summarily, on 20th April, 1992. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Judge of High Court failed to take notice that while dissolving the marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner, by way of `Khula', the benefit derived by respondent No.1 under the marriage was not ordered to be restored. The learned counsel contended that during the subsistence of marriage the petitioner had sent a sum of Rs.7,000 to the respondent from Saudi Arabia from which the respondent No.1 had purchased a property which should have been restored to the petitioner at the time the learned trial Court dissolved the marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner, by way of `Khula'. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. We have gone through the written statement of the petitioner filed in the suit instituted by respondent No.1 and find that no such plea was raised by him. In fact, the petitioner in paragraph 3(1) of his written statement only alleged that before his marriage with respondent No.1, he purchased a plot of land measuring 8 Marlas in Mauza `Mirza' and transferred the same in favour of respondent No.1 as a gesture of good‑will, which is now valued at Rs.40,

000. The petitioner in his above written statement nowhere alleged that he had remitted a sum of Rs.7,000 to respondent No.1 from Saudi Arabia, which she utilized for purchasing landed property. The petitioner also did not suggest this fact to the witnesses examined by respondent No.1 in cross‑examination before the trial Court. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise a point for the first time before this Court for which no foundation was laid at the earlier stage. The learned Judge in Chamber categorically stated that the trial Court while dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 had directed that the latter will not be entitled to recover the dower amount of Rs.15,

000. The above observation clearly show that respondent No.1 had disclaimed right of dower while praying for dissolution of marriage by way of `Khula". There appears no illegality in the judgment of High Court, dated 20‑4‑1992. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused. AA./M‑1881/S. Leave refused.