' In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed, for setting aside judgment, dated 18-5- 2005, passed by learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, whereby, suit for dissolution of marriage, brought by Faiza Sadiq (respondent No.2) against the petitioner, was decreed on the basis of 'Khula'.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that Faiza Sadiq, respondent No.2, filed suit for dissolution of marriage, dower and recovery of articles of dowry against the petitioner (Major Shahid Chaudhry) and stated that she was married to him on 12-4-1991 and out of this wedlock a son was born, who was aged about 12 years. She maintained that about 4/5 years back, petitioner gave her beating, abused and levelled different allegations and turned her out of his house along with her minor son. The articles of dowry were with the petitioner. She was residing in America temporarily for the last two years. The plaintiff-respondent stated that she had developed hatred against the petitioner-defendant and she could not live with him, therefore, she was entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of 'Khula' and that she was ready to relinquish her dower and articles of dowry. The petitioner filed reply. On 30-4-2005, Zafar Akhtar, (Special Attorney of respondent No.2), made statement that respondent No.2. Was not willing to live with the petitioner-defendant and that she was ready to relinquish her dower and articles of dowry. In lieu of 'Khula'. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit, brought by respondent- plaintiff vide judgment, dated 18-5-2005. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. As mentioned above, Faiza Sadiq, respondent No.2 had filed suit for dissolution of marriage, dower and recovery of articles of dowry against the petitioner (Major Shahid Chaudhry). Her suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed on the basis of 'Khula'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff-respondent had not executed power of attorney in favour of Zafar Akhtar, respondent No.3 and that suit was filed on' the basis of a forged power of attorney, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed. He further submits that no issues were framed in the presence of petitioner or his counsel but impugned judgment shows that case had been decided after framing of issues, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel' for the respondents has argued that respondent-plaintiff has filed suit on the basis of a valid power of attorney, executed in favour of respondent No.3 (Zafar Akhtar), therefore, impugned judgment cannot be set aside on this ground. He has further argued that during the pendency of the case, plaintiff-respondent had executed another power of attorney which has been attested by the competent Officer of the Embassy in New York (U.S.A.) and that plaintiff-respondent has placed on record affidavit duly attested by a Consular Attache and Assistant Protocol Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Camp Office Lahore; according to which, she (respondent No.2) confirmed that she had duly executed Special Power of Attorneys in favour of M. Zafar 'Akhtar, dated 2Q-4-2004 and 21-3-2005. Admittedly, respondent-plaintiff had filed suit on 23-7-2004 through Zafar Akhtar son of Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, Special Attorney. The Special Power of Attorney dated 21-3-2005 shows that Mst.
Faiza Shahid admitted that she had executed first power of attorney on 20-4-2004 and on the, basis of the same he (Attorney) filed suit for dissolution of marriage. She reaffirmed the appointment of Special Attorney and ratified the issuance of notices and institution of the suit by her special attorney on the basis of this first power of attorney. As mentioned above, Faiza Shahid also submitted affidavit before the learned trial Court that she has changed the signature. Paras Nos. 1 to 3 of the affidavit read as under:--- "(1) That I confirm, record, assure and declare to you that I have duly executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Zafar Akhtar, which has been notarized at the Consulate General of Pakistan, New York on April 20, 2004.
(2) That I further confirm, record, assure and declare to you that I have also duly executed a further Special Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Zafar Akhtar, which has been notarized at the Consulate General of Pakistan, New York on March 21, 2005.
(3) That what has been stated above is true and nothing has been concealed or misstated."
'So, if suit was not instituted through duly constituted attorney, the second power of attorney, executed by plaintiff-respondent, clearly empowered the attorney to do the needful. The plaintiff also submitted affidavit and admitted the execution of both Special Power of Attorneys. Hence institution of the suit even if the same was to begin with instituted as per the contention of the petitioner, unauthorizedly stands ratified in view of the recitals contained in the subsequent special power of attorney, execution whereof cannot possibly be called in question. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on the case of Mst. Surrayya Kausar v. Muhammad Asmat Ullah 2000 M LD 507. The petitioner is in 'A Pakistan whereas, plaintiff is residing in America. She has developed hatred against the petitioner, therefore, there appears to be no possibility of parties living together as husband and wife. So, learned trial Court has rightly decreed her suit on the basis of 'Khula'. The impugned judgment mistakenly shows that learned trial Court has decided the case after framing of issues but it makes no difference because suit was decreed on the basis of 'Khula' Even otherwise, suit cannot be dismissed merely on this ground. So, in the circumstances of the case, I find that impugned judgment is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant inference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.