1989 PLP 5002 (MLD)

Syed Aftab Sherazi for Petitioner. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this constitution petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent while the respondent filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner. Both these suits were tried together by the learned Judge Family Court, Jhang. The suit of the respondent succeeded while that of the petitioner failed vide judgment dated 28‑5‑1989. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed as incompetent and as barred by time by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 27‑2‑1989. This led to the filing of present constitution petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that the appeal could not be treated as incompetent and barred by time on account of failure of the petitioner to file a copy of the decree sheet alongwith the memorandum of appeal. On merits, it was argued that the learned Judge Family Court acted arbitrarily `in not relying on the evidence produced by the petitioner

3. I have considered these submissions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the evidence produced by the parties. The version of the petitioner that he married the respondent on 18‑2‑1949 when he was only 9 years old and that after 11 years, the respondent joined her in his house and though there was estrangement between the parties in the year 1971 but the respondent again joined him in 1972 and lived amicably in his house till March 1986, has not been believed by the learned Judge Family Court for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that the claim of the respondent that she is still virgin, was not challenged by the petitioner by asking her to submit herself to medical examination. Moreover, learned Judge Family Court has relied on the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent. It consists of Identity Card Ex. D 3 and Voters List for the year 1979 Ex. D.2. These two documents show that Mst. Noor Bakhat respondent daughter of Sher Shah was resident of Mouza Sheikh Chuhr. Noor Bakhat respondent was not included in the Voters List prepared for the residents of the village of the petitioner. The appraisal of evidence made by the learned Judge Family Court appears to be sound. Neither any misreading nor any non‑reading of any material piece of evidence could be pointed out. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judge Family Court as are based on evidence on record, cannot be ignored by this E Court in constitution jurisdiction.

4. For the reasons given above, no case for interference in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/F‑152/L. Petition dismissed.