1994 PLP 1006 (MLD)

The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has assailed the judgment dated 21-10-1992 dismissing the suit of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff married respondent/defendant 12/13 years earlier. A daughter was born out of the wedlock. Due to the strained relations between the parties he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 1-4-1986 which was dismissed on 12-6-1988. However, respondent after the dismissal of the aforesaid suit on her own accord joined the petitioner and performed the marital obligations, she according to him lived with him for a month at Jhang Sadar. Subsequently, she left the family abode which resulted in the filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal right on 25-6-1989 out of which the present Constitutional petition has emanated. The following issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties:

(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principle of res judicata in view of preliminary objection No.1? OPD (2) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction? OPD (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and vexatious and the defendant is entitled to special costs, if so, to what extent? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has already divorced the defendant on 1-1-1978 and as such this suit cannot proceed? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds alleged in the plaint? OPP . (6) Relief. The learned Judge Family Court after thrashing the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit through his judgment/decree dated 21-10-1992. Hence, this Constitutional petition.

3. The only point argued by the learned counsel is that while dismissing the earlier suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 12-6-1988 it was observed by the Judge Family Court that the petitioner did not divorce the respondent. However, this aspect of evidence has not been considered while passing the impugned judgment.

4. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. According to the petitioner earlier the respondent left the family abode in the year 1985 on the pretext of attending the marriage of her brother. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 2-4-1986 which was dismissed on 12-6-1988. The stance of the petitioner that after the dismissal of the aforementioned suit reconciliation was effected between the parties. Thereafter they stayed together for a period of one month in the Kothi of one Mehr Ghulam Abbas does not inspire any confidence. Said Mehr Ghulam Abbas was never produced in evidence to substantiate this factum. It is reflected from the documents that the parties remained in litigation from 12-1-1985 till 26-7-1989. The respondent's suit for recovery of dowry instituted on 12-12-1985 was decreed on 18-12-1988. Appeal and the Constitutional petition against the same were dismissed. It was a Watta Satta marriage of the parties and it has come on record that the petitioner's sister had long before been divorced by the respondent's brother. The parties are litigating on this issue for the last so many years and in this background I am not persuaded to interfere in this order in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction which is just and proper. No case for interference is made out hence, writ petition is dismissed in limine. AA./G-193/L Petition dismissed.