1985 PLP 2548 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 8‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Khula'‑‑Efforts for reconciliation badly failed‑‑No misreading/non‑reading pointed out in proceedings‑‑Legal and factual justification for decree for dissolution of marriage on grounds of Khula' also present‑‑Order of Family Court granting right of Khula' not interfered with. Through this constitutional petition Manzoor Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to declare the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court, Haroonabad to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Mst. Anwar Bibi respondent filed suit for dissolution of her marriage against Manzoor Ahmad petitioner on various grounds including that of Khula'. The suit was resisted whereon eight issues were framed. The respondent/ plaintiff produced three witnesses. She also appeared as a witness. The petitioner defendant produced four witnesses and himself appeared as D.W.5. On the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit on 12‑9‑1975 on the strength of issues Nos. 6 and 7 which read as follows:‑ Issue No. 6: Whether the defendant has misappropriated the ornaments of the plaintiff? Issue No. 7: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to divorce by way of Khula', if so, on what terms. Hence this petition. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no efforts made for the re‑conciliation between the parties and that Issues Nos.4 and 5 having been decided against the respondent/plaintiff there was no legal justification to grant decree for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of Khula'. No one has appeared to oppose this petition.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the question of Khula' has properly been considered by the learned Judge Family Court. In the circumstances o the case I am of the view that there was legal as well as factual justification for the grant of decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'. Learned counsel has failed to point out any& misreading/non‑reading by the learned Judge Family Court. As for the objection that no efforts whatsoever were made for settlement of dispute between the parties, I find that this is against the record. On 24‑10‑1974 efforts were made to bring pre‑trial reconciliation between the parties but the same failed. There is a specific order to this effect on record. On 29‑7‑1977 attempts were again made for post‑trial reconciliation between the parties. The Judge Family Court in his order has stated that: ‑ For what has been stated above, there being no merit the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their cost. H . B . T .???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.