' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--- Impugned herein is the order/judgment dated 17-4-2004 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Oghi wherein a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent Mst. Parveen ex-wife of the petitioner was partially decided granting decree of dissolution of marriage after conciliation efforts held by the Judge, Family Court in contemplation of section 14(2-A) of the Family Court Act failed while the learned Judge proceeded to frame issue in respect of the remaining prayer pertaining to the recovery of Rs.15,000 as maintenance allowance from January, 2003 till the decision of the case and for the recovery of expenses incurred by the respondent on her treatment as well as on criminal litigation with the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree allowed is based on no evidence and undue haste has been shown while granting the same without making sincere efforts for reconciliation and that respondent-wife cannot be given a free hand to seek dissolution of marriage according to her whims and that Family Judge was obliged to have probed into the background of the dispute.
' He further contended that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to try the rest of the two issues framed by it as the same do not fall within the realm of the Family Court jurisdiction and that the decree granted has not been drawn according to the rule nor it has been sent to the Collector as required thereunder.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment on the same line of reasoning given therein.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unfounded. The proviso to subsection
(4) of section 10 confers powers and jurisdiction on the Family Court to dissolve the marriage on the basis of "Khula" if despite all efforts made by it for reconciliation no scope is left for happy reunion of the spouses to live within the limits ordained by Allah the Almighty. The proviso is couched in such a language also containing non obstante clause giving wide ranging power to the Family Court to dissolve the marriage, which facts of a case permit such course.
5. In the instant case the learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned order has categorically mentioned that reconciliation efforts were made but the same failed because the respondent- plaintiff was vehement and categorical openly declaring that she was not ready to live with the defendant as his wife at any cost.
6. The enactment of the said proviso was enacted with the object that in the past suits for dissolution of marriage were tried like regular suits and it had to take years till its conclusion when by then the hairs of the wife turned white-gray and at that age she had no choice to remarry because of old age. To suppress this mischief the Legislature has enacted this beneficiary provision conferring jurisdiction and powers on the Family Court to dissolve the marriage forthwith on the basis of "Khula" if despite of sincere efforts made for conciliation the parties particularly the wife is not ready to become life partner again of the husband against which she has entered into a legal battle to wriggle out of the marital bonds, therefore, no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the Family Court because the impugned order is strictly in accordance with the proviso to subsection (4) of section 10 of the Family Court.
7. Before parting with this judgment it is emphasized that Family Court while dissolving marriage on the strength of the said proviso shall make intensive efforts for conciliation and shall deal with the situation intelligently and with reasonable degree of care and caution. The involvement of the Court in conciliation efforts must be with an object to achieve favourable result by saving the marital bond of the spouses from destruction. In case when out of wedlock child/children is/are born and alive the approach of the Court must be with extra degree of care. The conciliation proceedings, in view of the drastic change introduced by enacting proviso to subsection (4) of section 10 of the Family Courts Act, new shall not be conducted in a summary or casual manner lest it open a flood gate for dissolution of marriages at large scale on flimsy or artificial premise.
The Court duty is to probe deeply into mind of the spouses for discovering the level and quantum of aversion entertained for each other. Unwarranted liberal approach in dissolving marriage on the mere desire of the wife without just cause might render this beneficial provision a tool for inviting social evils both visible and invisible. It has been judicially noticed in many cases that through the efforts of Court spouses have entered into happy reunion for rest of their life. The Family Court however, would be acting within the sphere of its allotted jurisdiction/authority in dissolving the marriage when all its efforts to persuade the wife for happy reunion fail and there is strong possibility that the spouses would transgress .The limits ordained by "God" in case of forced/unhappy reunion.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of legal merits, is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.
9. The Additional Registrar of this Bench is directed to forward copies of this judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges, Additional District Judges as well as Judges of the Family Courts working within the jurisdiction of this Bench for guidance and compliance.