' Ahmad Hassan, petitioner, through this writ petition wants to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court against the judgment, dated 22-11-2003 which had awarded the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of "Khula to Mst. Munawr Bibi, respondent No,2 whereas the suit filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. After perusal of the record it reveals that Mst. Munawar Bibi, respondent No,2 had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 12-3-2003 against Ahmad Hassan, petitioner in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bahawalnagar on the basis of cruelty, bad character of the defendant and having developed intense hatred against the defendant-petitioner. The suit was contested by filing written statement by Ahmad Hassan, petitioner. In para. No,4 of the aforesaid written statement, it was stated that he had delivered golden ornaments to the father of the plaintiff at the time of the solemnization of marriage. It was further stated that Rs,5,00,000 were also paid afterwards to the father of the plaintiff, who wanted to purchase five acres of agricultural land and a pronote was executed by the father of the plaintiff in his favour. As the defendant-petitioner had demanded the return of Rs,5,00,000 so the suit was got filed by him. Another suit for grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by Ahmad Hassan, petitioner on 6-5-2003 against Mst. Munawar Bibi, respondent No,2 with the same assertions and averments as were entered into the above-noted written statement. Mst. Munawar Bibi submitted her written statement and denied all the allegations and assertions. Both the suits were consolidated and the proceedings were conducted in the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No,2. After the production of evidence and appreciation of it, the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights while decreed that of dissolution of marriage in favour of Mst. Munawar Bibi, respondent No,2 on 22-11-2003.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for dissolution of marriage was got filed by the father of Mst. Munawar Bibi, plaintiff-respondent No,2 when the defendant-petitioner had demanded the return of Rs,5,00,000. It has further been stated that as the plaintiff had not resided in the house of defendant-petitioner, so development of hatred could not be created and the grant of decree was not in accordance with law of the land.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel are not supported by any law and authority. It is not correct that hatred cannot grow, unless one of the spouses takes residence in the house of the other. Aversion/hatred can develop at any time. Birth of it differs from one person to another. Even a single event can ignite the aversion, while the greater blows A could be borne with perfect satisfaction in one's life without taking any adverse action. So it depends upon man to man and person to person and cannot be measured through any measurement/scale and weight. After having passed the whole life in cool and calm atmosphere, but in the last days of life, when the presence of one is supportive stick for, the other, becomes so miserable that desertion/dissolution comes out as the sole solution of the abhorrence. Human being is a creature, whose deportment can take U-Turn at any time. Thus, no yardstick can be fixed for this purpose. From the facts of each case, the Court seized of it, has to make the judgment after examining all the aspects. If the judicial mind and conscience of a Judge is satisfied that re-union would become a hateful union of miserable and pitiable spouses, it would be 'better to dissolve, rather to push them into hell. As the circumstances of the case, learned Court below has held that the union was a hateful one which finding is to be treated as finding of fact and cannot be assailed in this writ petition. It is, therefore, upheld.
5. It is an admitted fact on the record that the defendant-petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of alleged amount of Rs,5,00,000 against the father of plaintiffs-respondent No,2, therefore, litigation having started, it would not be better to order unification of the spouses. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.