' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks grant of leave to appeal from judgment, dated 10-9-2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Writ Petition No,1760 of 2003/BWP.
2. The respondent Mst. Taj Begum instituted, against the petitioner Nasir Ali alias Khizar Hayat, a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed by the Judge, Family Court, Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar, by judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 on the basis of Khula. The said respondent was directed to refrain from claiming all dowery articles, ornaments and maintenance allowance. The petitioner filed an appeal thereagainst, which was partly accepted by judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 by the Additional District judge, Bahawalnagar and the respondent lady was directed to return ten acres of land to the petitioner which had been given to her by the father of the petitioner. The decree for dissolution of marriage was maintained. The respondent moved Writ Petition No,1760 of 2003, which was allowed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench , by the impugned judgment, dated 10-9-2003. It was, however, observed that the petitioner and other legal heirs late Muhammad Amin, were at liberty to establish their claim regarding transfer of 10 acres of land through appropriate proceedings.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court did not take correct view in holding that the judgment and decree, dated 14-2-2003 for dissolution of marriage was not appealable before the District Judge/Additional District Judge by the virtue of section 14(2) of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964. It was next contended that the evidence on record clearly proved that the alienation of land measuring 10 acres by the deceased father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent lady was for no other consideration than that of being the duly wedded wife of the petitioner. Therefore, the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar was justified in accepting the appeal of the petitioner with the direction to the respondent to relinquish 10 acres of land coupled with other conditions as laid down by the Family Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was not sustainable at law.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the judgments of all the Courts along with the available record with his assistance. From the evidence produced by the parties, it is not clear whether the alienation, of 10 acres of land by father of the petitioner was as a consideration of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent or otherwise.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in adopting a safe course to leave the dispute regarding transfer of 10 acres of land for determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.