' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges the judgment and decree dated 16-7- 2004 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Chichawatni through which he has accepted the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Chichawatni.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married with Mst. Shamshad Akhtar/respondent on 30-4-1996. Curing the wed-lock a son was born who died. Thereafter the relationship between the parties became strained and the respondent according to the petitioner left her house and went to the house of her parents and she took away with her jewellery and other valuable articles and d:d not turn up. The respondent in her written statement denied the allegations and claimed that the petitioner turned her on 8-4-2002 and she is no more his wife and the spouses cannot live together. The controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated the framing of following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for? OPP.
(2) Relief.
' The petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and raised his claim for restitution of conjugal rights while the respondent appeared as D. W.1 and closed her evidence. After the closure of the evidence and after hearing arguments the learned Judge Family Court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment and decree was challenged through appeal which has been accepted through the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had divorced the respondent on 8-4-2002 but a compromise was entered upon on the intervention of the close relatives and the said talaqnama was withdrawn, on 20-5-2002 and the respondent is still the wife of the petitioner and she may be directed to join the petitioner and perform her marital obligations. It is also contended that the learned Addl: District Judge has wrongly held that the talaq had become effective. Actually talaq was withdrawn and certificate has been issued by the Secretary Union Council which shows that the talaq was withdrawn by the petitioner and the effectiveness certificate was never issued.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand claims that the respondent never received any notice for the revocation of the divorce by the petitioner and the same had become effective as the petitioner gave three talaqs at the same time. It is also contended that the hatredness between the respondent and the petitioner is aggravated and she claims that the petitioner had divorced her and she is no more his wife. In such circumstances she cannot be forced to join the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition as also the impugned judgment and decree. The only question in the present case is whether the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court can be set aside and the respondent can be directed to join the petitioner as his wife. The perusal of the plaint itself shows that the petitioner has levelled allegations against the respondent that she while leaving her house had taken away jewellery and other household articles and even otherwise the petitioner also admits that he had divorced the respondent on 4-2-2002 but only claim that the petitioner is that the divorce was revoked by him on 20-5-2002 before its effectiveness. The said document is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent and he claims that the said document has been subsequently prepared fraudulently by the petitioner in connivance with the. Secretary Union Council. He has shown the application moved by thpetitioner. There is cutting and the contention of the learned counsel is that the date of the said revocation application was 20-9-2002, which was changed to 20-5-2002. The respondent is also present and she states that there are no chances of compromise between the parties and the claim of the petitioner that he has divorced is denied by her. She claims that she is the divorcee from the petitioner and she has developed hatredness against him. This ground is sufficient to dismiss this petition as well, as he had levelled allegations against his own wife that she had taken away the jewellery and other household articles and the claim of the respondent is that the petitioner had filed the suit with mala tide intention as the suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the recovery of amount and due to this reason this suit was filed by the petitioner. After the perusal of the evidence and the hearing of the learned counsel for the parties . I am satisfied that there are no chances of reunion of the parties and the respondent cannot be forced to join the petitioner as she is a divorcee of the petitioner. Hence the learned Addl: District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal and no ground is made out for interference in the said judgment and decree.
6. In view of the above discussion this writ petition having no merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.