' Respondent No. 1, Mst. Sahib Khatoon filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Sargodha, on the ground of cruelty, non-maintenance, bad character of the petitioner etc. The suit having been resisted the pleadings gave rise to as many as seven issues with regard to cruelty, non-performance of marital obligations, non-maintenance, bad character of the petitioner, misappropriation of ornaments and other personal belongings, Khula` and restitution of conjugal rights. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was consolidated with the suit of respondent No, I.
2. At the time when P. W. 2, Muhammad Renzan was examined, the petitioner made a statement before the Court that if Muhammad Ramzan states on oath of talaq before the Court in the presence of the parties that the statement made by him is correct then the suit of respondent No. 1 may be decreed and his suit for restitution of conjugal rights may be dismissed. P. W. 2 in his statement has stated that respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner for about 24 years but was staying away for the last about 6 or 64 years on account of cruel treatment of the petitioner. He has further stated that respondent No. 1 used to accuse the petitioner of hi having illicit relations with Mst. Azizan. Moreover he was not maintaining her. He has further stated that during that period respondent No. 1 has been living separately and she has never been maintained.
3. After the offer was made by the petitioner the learned Judge, Family Court asked Mst. Sahib Khatoon whether the offer was acceptable to her. She in her statement recorded on the same date accepted the offer. Immediately thereafter P. W. 2 took oath on talaq before the Court as well as in the presence of the parties stating that his statement recorded in examination-in chief was correct. At this the learned Judge, Family Court decreed the suit of the respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :-
(a) Oaths Act, 1973, is not applicable to the proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act of 1964 and as such the offer and acceptance by the petitioner has no bearing on the merits of the case.
(b) No oath as such was administered to the petitioner nor he made any statement with regard to oath. The only oath which is recognized by the Holy Qur'an is that of Allah. Any other oath being repugnant to the injunctions of Holy Qur'an cannot be taken nor any statement can be made on that basis and if made it cannot be taken into consideration.
(c) The kind of oath, offered and accepted is not common to the race or locality to which the petitioner belongs as provided by section 8 of Oaths Act and further even if it is common, it being repugnant to decency it cannot be taken.
3-A. So far as the first contention is concerned the provision as contained in section 17(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act of 1964 makes the provisions as contained in sections 8 to 11 of Oaths Act, 1973, applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The aforesaid provisions of the Oaths Act relate to the offer as well as acceptance of the same. It means that the contentions raised in this behalf have no substance.
4. The perusal of the record in this case shows that the aforesaid offer was made by the petitioner at the time when P. W. 2, Muhammad Ramzan was examined by respondent No. 1. The statement of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court on 9-2-1976, clearly shows that such offer was made without any further stipulation. It was stated in clear terms that if P. W. 2 Muhammad Ramzan states on oath of talaq taken in the Court then the suit of respondent No. 1 may be decreed and that for restitution of conjugal rights may be dismissed. This offer was accepted by respondent No. 1 as she was the only party to be affected by that offer. P. W. 2, Muhammad Ramzan took oath as suggested by the petitioner. Since the statement was made in accordance with the offer made and accepted by respondent No. 1, therefore, the suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed. In the circumstances it cannot be said that no offer for taking oath on talaq was made by the petitioner. The statement so recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court having not been taken any exception to cannot be disbelieved.
5. There is nothing on record to show that the kind of oath on talaq "mentioned above is not common amongst the persons of the race or locality to which the petitioner belongs. If it had not been so then he would have never made any such offer. Such oath cannot be called to be vulgar or indecent. It actually means that if a person makes incorrect statement after taking such oath then he would have to divorce his own wife under the pressure of oath. Further decency is to be measured in terms of the social values prevailing amongst the persons of a particular race or locality. Since such kind of oath has not been proved to be uncommon or indecent, therefore, no exception can be taken to it.
6. It was the petitioner himself who made offer to P. W. 2 to take oath of talaq. Whether decent or otherwise after having made such offer himself he is now estopped by his conduct to plead that since the oath was not decent, therefore, it could not be taken.
7. Learned counsel has laid great stress that since oath can be taken on Allah alone, therefore, the oath in question being repugnant to the Holy Qur'an cannot be taken. Be that as it may the fact remains that the provisions as contained in sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act being very much applicable to the proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, any oath which is common amongst the persons of a particular race or locality and which is not repugnant to justice or decency can be taken. As such I find no illegality in the judgment passed by the Court. Below. It also does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. That being so I do not find any exception to the impugned judgment.