' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Muhammad Hussain petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 21- 9-2004 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Alipur, whereby the suit filed by Mst. Nasira Parveen, respondent No.2, for dissolution of marriage has been decreed.
2. Briefly the facts described in the plaint filed by respondent No.2 are that she was married with the petitioner on 15-11-1996 and she started performing her marital obligations and a child was born, .
Who is living with her. According to respondent No.2 at the time of marriage the petitioner had posed him to be unmarried, but afterwards it came to her knowledge that he was already married having children. The respondent asked the petitioner to settle her in a separate constructed house upon which he became annoyed and started levelling false allegations of immorality against her and ultimately expelled her out of the house in three clothes. According to the respondent she was deserted for the last about six and a half years, but the petitioner did not try any effort for rehabilitation nor he paid any maintenance to her. She claimed to have developed hatred against the petitioner due to levelling of allegations against her and preferred to die than living with the petitioner as there was no possibility of performing the marital obligations under the limits ordained by the Almighty Allah.
3. The petitioner contested the suit by filing the written statement and controverted the averments contained in the plaint. According to the petitioner, the respondent was not a lady of good character and a love letter was recovered from her purse. However, the petitioner claimed that in case of decree, he was entitled to recover the properties and ornaments given to the respondent as Haqul-Mehr.
4. After framing of the issues both the parties led their evidence and finally the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment, dated 21-9-2004, which is being assailed through this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is still ready and willing to keep respondent No.2 as his wife if she mends her ways. Also contends that it was admitted by the respondent that she had received 15 tolas gold ornaments and 7 Marlas plots was also transferred in her name in lieu of Haq-ul-Mater, but while passing the decree in her favour the learned trial Court has not passed any direction for the return of the same to the petitioner illegally as she herself was responsible for dissolution of marriage being a woman of loose character having intimacy with another person, which is established from the love letter and photographs produced during the trial as Exhs.Dl to D.S. Relies upon 1984 CLC 3369 and PLD 1998 Lahore 52 in support of his contentions.
6. Respondent No.2 is present in person. According to her she is not in a position to engage a counsel and requested the Court to pass the order after perusal of the record. However, she has opposed this petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 in person and perused the entire evidence led by the parties. In the suit respondent No.2 has categorically averred that the relations between the parties became strained as the petitioner had levelled obnoxious allegations against her and considered her to be a woman of bad character, which, according to her, were false and she was also beaten and expelled out of the house due to this reason. The perusal of the evidence led by the petitioner clearly show that he did not consider the respondent a woman of good character and also produced a "love letter" allegedly recovered from the purse of the respondent and four photographs (Exhs.D.1 to D.5) in support of his claim. I do not consider the said documents sufficient to declare respondent No.2 a woman of bad character. If any letter was sent by some person to her, there is nothing on the record to show that she was a consenting party in the writing of the said letter. The photographs also show that she was not in a pleasant mood and possibility of photographing such snaps under some coercion/trapping cannot be ruled out as she is not loping with the other partner and seems to be in a serious mood.
' Even otherwise the photographer was not produced to show that under which circumstances the said snaps were shoot. However, after levelling of such allegations, it has become crystal clear that there is no possibility of reunion between the parties to live together under the limits ordained by the Almighty Allah.
8. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in lieu of decree for dissolution of marriage, the respondent should have been ordered to return the dower is concerned, it is noted down that the respondent has not claimed dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, but she asked for the same alleging cruelty and levelling of false allegations by the petitioner against her besides that she was deserted for the last six and a half years, but the petitioner had not maintained her nor made any efforts for reunion as he was already a married person having young children. The treatment expected from the husband, whether or not he is on good terms with his wife, is clearly laid down in the Qur'an: "Live with them in kindness; even if you dislike them, perhaps you dislike something in which Allah has placed much good" (4:19).
It is highly reprehensible for the husband to take anything if he is at fault. This is based on Verse No.20 of Surah AnNisaa, which states:- "And if you intend to replace a wife by another and you have given one of them a qintaar (great amounts) (as Mahr), take not the least bit of it back. Would you take it wrongfully without a right and (with ) a manifest sin."
' Even if divorce is decided on, the good treatment referred to before is still required. The Qur'an says:-- "Then keep them in all decency or part from them decently. It is not lawful for you to take anything you have given them" (2:229).
' Thus Qur'an also says-- "Once you divorce women and they have reached the end of their waiting period, then either retain them in all decency or part from them in decency. Do not retain them unjustly so that you exceed the limit; anyone who does that merely hurts himself." (2:231).
' Kind treatment of wives and families is a part of our religion Islam. Tv- Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) has said:-- "From among the believers are those who have the kindest disposition and are kindest to their families, such are those who show most perfect faith."
And according to another Hadith: "The best among you are those who are kindest to their wives."
9. Ibne Abbas (Radiyallahu Anhu) reports that the wife of (the Sahabi) Thabit Ibne Qays (Radiyallahu Anhu) came to Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) and said, "0 Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam), I have no complaints about the character and piety of Thabit, but I fear ungratefulness (of my husband) after accepting Islam" Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) asked her, "Are you prepared to return to him his garden, (which he had given as Maher)?"
She replied in the affirmative. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) then asked Thabit (Radiyallahu Anhu) to accept the garden and divorce her. It clearly shows that the divorce/Khula was sought without any just cause and reason, therefore, direction was issued to the wife to return we Mahr in lieu of divorce/Khula. In the present case the petitioner has failed to show that he was not at fault and the respondent had asked for dissolution of marriage without any just cause and reason or there was every possibility of reunion between the parties when the petitioner was considering her to be a woman of bad character, but failed to produce any sufficient evidence to support the same. As such the learned trial Court has committed no illegality by not directing the respondent to return the benefits derived by her in lieu of decree for dissolution of marriage and the impugned judgment and decree is maintained. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not fmd any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed.