1987 PLP 1668 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 17th May, 1987. The petitioner has called in question judgment of the learned Judge Family Court, Narowal in F.C.No. 10/86 and F.C.No.20/86, dated 18‑1‑1987, only pertaining to the consideration, fixed for the grant of decree for dissolution of marriage on account of Khula. This matter came up before me on 22‑4‑1987 when respondent No.l was required to appear and participate in the pre‑admission hearing. It was also directed that he should come prepared to argue the main case. The whole case has been heard, therefore, the petition is admitted for full hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit against respondent No. 1 in the Court of Judge Family Court, Narowal, inter alia, on the ground of Khula. Subsequently, respondent No.1 also instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The two suits were consolidated and following issues were framed: (1) Whether defendant treated the plaintiff with habitual cruelty? O. P. P. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on the basis of Khula, If so, its condition? O.P.P. (3) Whether defendant is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights? O.P.P. (4) Relief. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Judge Family Court, decreed the suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula and fixed the consideration for Khula as 10 tolas of ornaments, apart from denying petitioner's right to claim maintenance both past as well as future. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted the present petition. With the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence on the record. The petitioner appearing as P.W.‑3 had stated in cross‑examination that she was given jewellery, weighing 5 tolas at the time of marriage by the respondent No.1 which she had left behind, while leaving her marital home. On the other hand, respondent No.l appearing as D.W.‑2 stated that he had given 10 Tolas of Jewellery to the petitioner at the time of wedding, which is with the petitioner. Thus, the two testimonies reveal that there are conflicting views both as to the quantum of jewellery and as to who is keeping it. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home and was living with her parents alongwith a minor son, and both of them have not been maintained by the respondent No.l for nearly 7 to 8 months. The parties had lived together as husband and wife for a period well over 7 years. The learned trial Court has observed that the statement of respondent No.l as to quantum of jewellery has gone unrebutted, but it appears that the above‑referred statement of the petitioner has escaped notice of the learned trial Court. Since parties have lived together as husband and wife for nearly well over 7 years and there is a conflicting version, not only as to the quantum of jewellery given by respondent No.l to the petitioner at the time of marriage but also there is conflicting evidence on the question whether the petitioner had actually taken that jewellery alongwith her or not; therefore, on the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served if abandonment of petitioner's right to claim maintenance be fixed as consideration of Khula. Consequently, this petition is accepted and accordingly the impugned order is modified to the extent that consideration of Khula would be that the petitioner shall not claim maintenance for herself. There shall be no orders as to costs. M.B.A./P‑11/L Order accordingly