2001 PLP 137 (CLC)

Mansoor‑ul‑Islam Khatak for Respondent No.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has put in appearance in response to pre‑admission notice. He is ready with arguments on the available record. This matter is being dealt with as a Pakka matter.

2. Petitioner and respondent No.1 were married on 5‑3‑1997. The dower was fixed at 10 Tolas of gold and 1/3rd share in the Haveli located in District of Kohat. On 25‑11‑1999 respondent No.1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. In the plaint it was, inter alia, alleged that she has developed hatred towards the petitioner and will prefer to die than to live with him as his wife. In his written statement the petitioner denied several allegations made in the plaint. Issues were framed. Relevant being Issue No.1 is reproduced as under:‑‑ "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'? If so, on what terms?" The evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Judge, Family Court decreed the suit on 6‑4‑2000 on the ground of Khula' subject to respondent No.1 returning 10 Tolas gold to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved she filed appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi who allowed the same and modified the decree by removing the said condition vide judgment and decree, dated 12‑6‑2000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it stood proved on record that gold ornaments weighing 10 Tolas were given to the respondent No.1 in lieu of dower and that there is no proof on record that these were taken back. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge; Rawalpindi by stating that the same is based on a proper reading of evidence on record.

4. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this writ petition with the assistance of the learned counsel for the. parties. I find that the respondent No.1 appeared as P.W.1 and admitted that 10 Tolas gold was given to her but then she has specifically stated that the same was snatched away from her. On the other hand, the petitioner while appearing as D. W.1 has not specifically denied the said allegation. 1, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to misread the evidence on record while holding that it has not been denied on record that the gold ornaments were later snatched away by the petitioner from respondent No. 1.

5. Be that as it may, I have carefully examined the written statement as also the statement of the petitioner as D.W.1. He has nowhere demanded that the said gold ornaments be returned to him as consideration of Khula.

6. This being now well‑settled that husband is required not only to prove benefits given by him to his wife as a result of marriage but he should specifically demand the return of the same, reference may be made to the case of Dilshad v. Mst. Nusrat Nazir and another PLD 1991 SC 779, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was to be accepted, the requisite demand by the petitioner for the refund of the alleged benefits is absent in the present case.

7. Writ petition is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑763/L Petition dismissed.