1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---The present constitutional petition has been filed to challenge the judgment and decree of the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge and Family Court Judge, Larkana passed in Family Suit No,82 of 2001 Re: Arfana v. Ahsan Ali, by which the learned Judge had dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of Khula.
2. ' It was alleged in the plaint that after marriage the petitioner used to maltreat her and used to take intoxicant and then turned her out from the house after beating her. Thereafter the petitioner did not maintain her. It was further alleged in the plaint that the respondent No,1 developed hatred against the petitioner therefore, she could not live with him within the limits prescribed by God.
3. Therefore, she requested for her dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula.
4. ' The matter was contested by the petitioner who filed written statement denying all the allegations of the respondent No,
1. Pre-trial and post-trial proceedings were held by the trial Court but the same were failed. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the defendant is man of bad character and taking intoxication?
(2) Whether the defendant started beating the plaintiff and his conduct with the plaintiff was just like servant?
(3) Whether after marriage the defendant started selling the household articles of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed in plaint?
(5) What should the decree be?
5. ' The parties led evidence in support of their cases. After considering the material available on the record and conduct of the parties during the pre-trial and post-trial proceedings, learned Judge dissolved the marriage on the ground of Khula under the impugned judgment and decree.
6. ' Learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced before the trial Court for reaching at the conclusion that the petitioner was taking intoxicants and maltreating her; that there are material contradictions in the evidence therefore, the trial Court had exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in it.
7. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has stated that no documentary evidence could be produced for proving the fact of taking intoxicant and that there are no material contradictions in the evidence. He has pointed out to a portion of the judgment of the trial Court appearing at page 5 in which the learned Judge had observed the conduct of the parties during pre-trial and post-trial proceedings and argued that during the said proceedings the petitioner became harsh with the respondent No,1, which by itself was enough to grant the decree of Khula.
8. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the learned trial Court had appreciated the evidence in accordance with law by giving due weight to the examination-in-chief of the parties and their cross-examination and from that evidence the trial Court formed the opinion that the respondent No,1 had proved the issues. In the impugned judgment at page 5 the observation of the trial Court is as under:-- "I have personally examined plaintiff and defendant at the time of pre-trial and post-trial and I found that defendant is not agreed for compromise with the plaintiff but he has used harsh words at the time of pre-trial and post-trial with the plaintiff, therefore, I found that the defendant has used harsh language in my presence with the plaintiff at the time of pre-trial and post-trial, therefore, he also used to beat her and kept just like as servant, hence issue answered in affirmative."
9. ' As regards the arguments of learned Advocate for the applicant that no documentary proof has been produced by the respondent No,1 to prove the allegation of taking intoxicant by the petitioner, the evidence available on the record was sufficient to reach at the conclusion, however, in such type of allegation, it is very difficult rather impossible to procure documentary evidence or led.
10. There are no material contradictions in the evidence available on the record.
11. ' In the light of what has been discussed above, the petition has no merits. The same is dismissed in limine.