' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution impugnes the validity of the judgment of the learned Judge. Family Court, Jhang, respondent 2, dated the 11th December, 1970, dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration to the effect that she was not the wife of respondent 1, and of the learned District Judge, Jhang respondent 3, dated the 28th June, 1971, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court.
2. Mst. Manzoor Zohran, the petitioner, was married to Manzoor Hussain. Respondent 1, when both were minors. She claimed to have repudiated her marriage, which, according to her, had not been consummated after attaining puberty and before the age of 18 years. To counteract respondent l's assertion that she was his wife she brought declaratory suit that she was not his wife.
3. Respondent 1 resisted the suit and maintained that she had been living and cohabiting with her.
As a matter of fact he instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her.
4. The learned trial Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish her averments touching non-consummation of marriage and its repudiation before attaining the age of 18 years.
Consequently he dismissed her suit. The learned District Judge endorsed the finding of the learned trial Judge and dismissed her appeal. Feeling aggrieved she preferred to this Court appeal which was later on converted into the instant writ petition.
5. It is on appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties that the learned trial and the appellants Courts concluded that the petitioner had not established non-consummation and repudiation of marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to find fault with the process of formulation of the views by the learned trial and the appellate Courts for not accepting the repudiation of marriage by the petitioner. The learned counsel contended that declaration of repudiation of marriage to be effective did not require presence of any of the witnesses. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioner's sole declaration of repudiation of marriage, if proved to have been made, even if in the absence of any witness, was quite enough to bring the marriage to an end. However, it is the petitioner's own case that she repudiated marriage in presence of the witnesses whom she produced in evidence. The learned Courts were not prepared to accept her testimony as also that of his witnesses at face value and found, on appraisal of evidence, which they were entitled to hold, that she had not succeeded to prove that she had repudiated marriage before attaining the age of 18 years. The finding of fact on this point has not been shown to suffer from any legal flaw. This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its own finding for a finding of fact given by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The petition is without any force and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.