Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 2704 of 1985, decided on 9th March, 1986.
---Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 10 a151--Consolidation of suits--Reappraisal of evidence Constitutional jurisdiction--On consolidation of suits, discarding evidence adduced by one party and relying upon that of other by trial Court, held, would not amount to misreading of evidence--There being no room for reappraisal of evidence in constitutional jurisdiction, order of Court below not suffering from jurisdictional defect, would not be interfered with by High Court.
M.D. Tahir for Petitioner.
K.H. Khurshid for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 9th March, 1986.
This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 2704 and 3183, both of 1985, as the same decision of the learned Judge Family Court, Sialkot has been assailed therein. It shall, however, remain on the .file of W.P. No. 2704/85.
2. The. facts are that Mst. Mariam Bibi, respondent sued the petitioner for dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of habitual cruelty, keeping relations with women of ill-repute, failure to provide maintenance for 4 years and Khula. These grounds are reflected by Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court consolidated both the suits and by its judgment, dated 10-6-1985, dissolved the marriage. Consequently, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
3. It is discernible from the impugned judgment that Issue No. 1 has been answered against the respondent for want of evidence. However, on the question of the petitioner's keeping relations with women of ill-repute, the respondent's contention that when she objected to the petitioner's liaison with such women, she was melted out cruelty and turned out of the house, was accepted by the learned Family Court. Issue No. 2 was thus decided in her favour. Likewise, the decision on the Issue relating to petitioner's failure to maintain the respondent also went against him. Under issue No. 4, the Court found that due to the 'petitioner's relations with other women, coupled with his failure to maintain her, she developed hatred against him, which in its opinion furnished basis for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of Khula. The petitioner's version that the respondent's father had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000 from him and that when he demanded repayment of the loan, out of retaliation, she filed the suit for dissolution of marriage, was disbelieved by the learned Family Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In order to attack the Family Court's findings on Issues No. 2, 3 and 4, the petitioner's learned counsel read out the entire evidence of both the parties. He reiterated the petitioner's stand that the demand of repayment of loan, was the main bone of contention between the parties. It was argued that the Family Court misread the evidence and the respondent failed to establish her case. In the submission of the learned counsel, the material on the record justifies an inference that the respondent stayed back without any reasonable cause and thus was not entitled to the grant of any maintenance. In support of this submission he relied on Bilqees Fatima v. Noor Muhammad and 2 others P L D 1968 Lah. 1109 and Kaura v, Mst. Mansad Mai and another P L D 1981 Lah. 335. The learned counsel also challenged the propriety of the pronouncement of .divorce on the basis of Khula and pointed out that the parties were married about 25 years ago and having lived together so long, there was no cogent reason to regard their union as hateful.
5. It is to be noticed that to prove her case, the respondent', besides her testimony, examined two witnesses, namely Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ghafoor. This evidence lends support to her version on the issues aforesaid. On the other hand, the petitioner also entered the witness-box and produced Salamat Ali and Maqbool Ahmad, who supported him. The learned Judge Family Court discarded the petitioner's evidence, but relied upon that of the respondent. It is not a case of misreading of evidence. What the petitioner really wants is the reappraisal of the evidence, for which there is no room in writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court on the Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are findings of fact. There is no good ground to interfere therewith in these proceedings. It may be added that there is no issue from this wedlock and it was upon overall assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, that the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the parties could not amicably pull on as husband and wife and consequently dissolved the marriage on the ground of Khula. This view of the Family Court is not open to any exception. The observations appearing in the two precedents; relied upon by the learned counsel, for the petitioner, are qualified by the facts of those cases and of no avail to the petitioner.
6. There is no jurisdictional defect or even an illegality in the impugned order to justify the invocation of writ jurisdiction.
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions having been found without any merit are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear) their own costs.
H . B . T . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer