Find a Lawyer

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that since the suit of the respondent on the ground of Khula having earlier been dismissed, the second suit filed by her was incompetent under the doctrine of res judicata.

3. The learned Single Single Judge has rejected the contention and referred to another decision of the High Court reported as Ghulam Muhammad v. Mst. Rashida Bibi and 2 others (P L D 1983 Lah. 442). The doctrine of res judicata has no application, in the circumstances of the case. A wife may apply for divorce on the ground of being habitually beaten, lack of maintenance etc etc. If she fails in the suit, that will not give a handle to the respondent to go on beating the wife or not paying the maintenance by saying that she cannot go to the, Court again and get a decree on this ground. The suit earlier filed failed according to the pleadings and evidence of the parties in that suit. If circumstances arise which make the life of the parties impossible to lead within the limits prescribed by Islamic Law, it would be open to the wife to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula notwithstanding that a request for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula had earlier failed. From a copy of the plaint filed in the present suit (copy placed on record), it appears that the respondent :after narrating the previous litigation amongst the parties, had said that since after the dismissal of her previous suit and the appeal for dissolution of marriage, the litigation amongst the parties was still going on and there was no possibility in future for living together. She has got hatred and the saturation point has reached where the life is in danger and that there is no issue from the wedlock. From the evidence which the learned counsel for the appellant had read out, it appears that his own witness, D. W. 1 had said that since the respondent was living therefore, there was no question of payment of maintenance. Maintenance has to be paid to the wife wherever she may be living unless a husband can show that he was justified in not paying the maintenance. After recording evidence of the p parties and hearing them, the learned Judge Family Court has came to the conclusion that this marriage cannot survive nor the parties can live within limits prescribed by law. He thus dissolved the marriage. He had the) jurisdiction and he has exercised it in accordance with the power conferred on him by law. The order has been examined by the learned Single Judges and he found no interference called for. In the circumstances, we too find no reason for interference in the orders of the two Courts. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.