1991 PLP 1642 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Marriage was dissolved on basis of Khula'‑‑‑Husband neither had lodged any claim before Trial Court for payment of any benefit allegedly conferred by him on his wife nor produced Nikahnama on basis of which he had claimed return of benefits‑-‑Conduct of husband, would disentitle him to seek return of alleged benefits‑‑‑Court below in circumstances rightly declined to calculate alleged benefits. Abdul Majid v. Razia Bibi and another P L D 1975 Lah. 706 ref. Masood Javed for Petitioner. Jari Ullah Khan for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 19‑2‑1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the judgment and decree dated 24‑4‑1989 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore was modified to the extent that Khula` was maintained but compensation of Rs.50,000/‑ was dis allowed. The grievance of the petitioner relates to compensation alone. `

2. Mr. Masood Javed, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is based on misreading/disregard of material evidence on record, inasmuch as according to Nikah Nama 16 tolas of ornaments were handed over by the husband at the time of Nikah to respondent No.2, but the learned Additional District Judge, erred in holding that there was no evidence on record for calculation of the benefits conferred on the contesting respondent by the petitioner herein.

3. Mr. Jari Ullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the learned Additional District Judge has correctly read the evidence and there is no misreading or disregard of evidence. It was held by the learned Additional District Judge that the basic document viz. Nikah Nama was not produced by any of the parties and that the oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record did not conclusively prove that any benefit had been given by the husband to the wife.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. No case for misreading or disregard of any material piece of evidence has been made out. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner did not lodge any claim before the learned Judge, Family Court for the payment of any benefit allegedly conferred by him on his wife and, therefore, his conduct would disentitle him to seek return of the alleged benefits. The same view has been taken in Abdul Majid v. Razia Bibi and another (P L D 1975 Lahore 766), which I respectfully follow. The Nikah Nama on the basis of which the petitioner now seeks return of benefits was never produced by either party before the Judge, Family Court and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, rightly declined to calculate the benefits allegedly conferred by the petitioner on respondent No.2 on its basis.

5. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./F‑245/L Petition dismissed.