Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 42-F of 1983/BWP, decided on 3rd December, 1984.

---S. 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Khuld--Mere fact that wife stated that she was not prepared at all to live with her husband would not be sufficient to dissolve marriage on ground of Khula--Issue of fact--No misreading/non-reading of material evidence found in proceedings before lower Courts--Courts giving sound and cogent reasons in support of conclusions arrived at--High Court declined to interfere in such conclusion.

G.N. Gohar for Petitioner.

M. Abdullah Jaffar Bhatti for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1984.

Through this constitutional petition Mst. Jindan wants this Court to declare the judgment and decree of the Judge Family Court Bahawalpur, dated 13-5-1981 and the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, dated 8-11-1982 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. On 20-5-1979 Mst. Jindan filed suit for dissolution against Rahim Bukhsh respondent on various grounds including that of Khula. The suit was resisted whereon eight issues were framed. The parties adduced evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 13-5-1981. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 8-11-1982, hence this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue No.6 of "Khula" was not properly appreciated by the learned Courts below inasmuch as the respondent husband having prosecuted the petitioner/ wife under section 498, P.P.C. (wherein she was convicted by the Magistrate but acquitted on appeal), there was no possibility of living smoothly with the husband within Hudood of Allah. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the judgment and decrees of the learned Courts below.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Issue No.6 is issue of fact. The learned Courts below having applied their conscious mind found issue against the petitioner. The Courts below have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. I do not see any misreading/non-reading of material evidence. The mere fact that Mst. Jindan, the petitioner says that she was not prepared at all to live with her husband is not sufficient to dissolve marriage on the ground of Khula. As for the registration of case and her prosecution under section 498, P.P.C. is concerned, I feel that she was responsible for that. I do not find any relevant provisions of any statute having been violated. The evidence has been appreciated in accordance with the guidelines given by the superior Courts in such like cases.

4. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case to interfere with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T. Writ refused.