KARRAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI, J.-A Constitutional Petition No. 1312 of 1979 under Article 199 was filed by the present appellant questioning that part of the decree dated 15-1-1979 passed by the respondent No. 2, Judge Family Court, Lahore, which directed her to forego her right to the recovery of dowry in favour of the respondent No. 1 her husband .As a quantum of ransom of khula' sought by her. The learned Single Judge in Chamber who heard that petition having found no justification refused to interfere with the aforesaid impugned direction in writ Jurisdiction of this Court and consequently dismissed the same in limine on 10-3-1979. The appellant has now challenged that order dated JO- 3-1979 in this Intra-Court appeal before us.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant instituted a suit against respondent No. 1 her husband for dissolution of her marriage inter alia on the ground of khula'. The suit was hotly contested on all the grounds including khula'. Respondent No. 2 whom the suit was entrusted for disposal, after recording the necessary evidence granted the decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the appellant against respondent No. 1 on the ground of khula' in consideration of giving up her right to the recovery of the dowry lying with her husband.
3. As stated earlier, the appellant unsuccessfully questioned the correctness of fixation of quantum of ransom in khula' by way of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and again has challenged the same by way of appeal before this Bench. .
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence inestimably. The short question involved in this case is whether respondent No. 2 could direct the appellant to give up her right to the recovery of dowry as a ransom for khula', in favour of her husband.
5. The only crucial point which requires deep consideration into the matter is regarding the quantum of ransom (fidya) ; in case a woman asks her husband for her release through khula'. In other words of question which arises for determination is as to whether a woman can be asked or directed to compensate her husband to only the exetent of benefits received by her from her husband or to make payment in excess of whatever was given to her as dower or on any other account. Verse No. 229 (Surah Baqar) of the Holy Qur'an which has been undisputedly acknowledged by all Schools of Thought in Islam as the basis and the origin of the legality of the khula' may be referred advantageously along with its Urdu and English translation as follows :- urdu "Divorce may be (pronounced) twice ; then kept (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness and it is not lawful for you to take back any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within limits of Allah ; then if you fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah ; there is no blame on either of them if she gives something (to her husband) for her release."
6. The jurists have differed on the question of quantum of ransom "fidyah" in khula` on account of different interpretations put forth by them on the above holy verse. Therefore some of them hold that receiving of quantum larger than what the husband has given to his wife, as compensation for effecting khula` is lawful. They rely in their arguments on apparent meanings of the holy verse and opine that whatever "fidyah" is agreed upon between the parties, it shall be lawful.
7. On the other hand, most of the jurists have read the Holy `Surah Baqar' in conjunction with the traditions of the Holy Prophet (a.s.). They forbid the taking of more than what the husband had given on the basis of Holy Prophet's saying regarding the wives of Sabit Ibn Qais who having mentioned aversion and hatred of their husband demanded release from marital bondage. Both these instances of khula` relate to Sabit Ibn Qais. In the first instance, his wife Jamila came to the Holy Prophet (a.s.) and stated her complaint in the following words :- "Oh Prophet of `Allah'! Nothing can bring me and him together. When I raised my veil, he was coming from the front with some men. I saw that be was out of them the shortest and the ugliest. I swear by `Allah' I do not hate him because of any defect in him, religious or moral, but I hate his ugliness. I swear by `Allah' that if it was not for fear of `Allah' I would have spit at his face when he came to me. Oh Prophet of `Allah'! You see how handsome I am, and Sabit is an ugly person. I don't blame his religion or his morals but I fear heresy in Islam."
On hearing this the Holy Prophet of `Allah' said to Jamila :-- "Are you prepared to return the garden that he gave you." She said "Yes, Oh Prophet of `Allah' and even more." The Holy Prophet said : "No more, but you return the garden that he gave you," and then the Holy Prophet said to Sabit : "Take the garden and divorce her.
(5) The second incident is of Habiba, the other wife of Sabit, and it is thus stated by Imam Malik and Abu Daud. "One day early in the morning when the Holy Prophet came out of his house, he found Habiba standing there. He inquired from her what the matter was and she said. "I and Sabit can never pull on together." When Sabit appeared, the Prophet of Allah said : This is Habiba, daughter of Sehl. She has stated what Allah wished she should state', Habiba said, "O, Prophet of Allah, Let Sabit take from me whatever he has given me for that is all with me". The Holy Prophet told Sabit to take back what he had given her and to release her."
8. We may further quote the relevant extracts from pages 517, 518, 519 of "A Code of Muslim Personal Law" Volume I (First Edition, 1978) compiled by Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman which deals exhaustively on the subject. While dealing with the traditions of companions and successors of the Holy Prophet on the question of quantum of ransom, the eminent author mentions as under :- "Traditions of the Companions and the successors.-With respect to the quantum of compensation for khula` there are different averments from the Sihabah (Companions of the Prophet) and Tabbi'in (Successors of the companions of the Prophet). Ibn al-Qayyim has stated thus;
(a) According to some, taking back more than what the husband has given to the wife is prohibited.
(b) According to others taking back more is permissible.
(c) According to still others it is disapproved. Amongst the Companions of the Prophet, Abu Bakr considers the taking of more to be unlawful and maintains that the husband shall be made to return the same to the wife. Ta'us and Zuhri also agree with the first view. They hold that it is not lawful for the husband to take back more than what he has given to the wife. According to Ata, if the husband takes back anything more than the dower he shall be made to restore the same to the wife. Awza'i too has said that it is not competent judicially for the husband to take any thing from the wife except what he has given her.
With respect to the second view, `Abd al-Razzak has reported from Ma'mar and Ma'mar from `Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Aqil that Rabi` bt. Mu'awwdh b. `Afra' told him that she obtained khula` from her husband in return for every thing that she was owner of. When the matter was taken to Caliph `Uthman, he held the same to be lawful. On the other hand, with respect to the third view, it is reported by 'A.I Ibn A.I Talib through Hakam b. 'Uyainiyah that he forbade the husband from taking back more than what he had given.
Views of the four Imams.-According to Abu Hanifah taking back more is disapproved. Malik and Al Shafi's however, hold that taking back more than the dower is lawful. The assertion of Ahmad b.
Hanbal corresponding to that of Abu Hanifah is that the husband shall be made to return to the woman what in addition he had given her.
Muhammad al-Shaybani writes in his book "Muwatta". "If the wife in return for anything gets herself released through khula` it shall judicially be lawful ; but I do not approve that the husband should take from his wife more than what he has given to her, in spite of the fact that the differences had arisen on account of the wife. If the difference and dissension arise on account of the husband I do not approve of the husband taking anything at all. If he does take something, though it shall be lawful judicially but in all conscience, (i.e. Between man and God) it shall be loathsome. Same is the assertion of Imam Abu Hanifah". Similarly, Al-Shaybani in his another work, "Kitab al-Athar", reports through Hammad and Ibrahim, Imam Abu Hanifah's assertion, "when the cruelty be from the side of the husband his accepting compensation for Khula` is not lawful."
Al-Kasani in his book, "Bada'i al-Sana'i" has written : When cruelty and excesses be that of the husband it is not lawful for him to take anything from the wife as compensation for Khul'a. If the husband, however, accepts compensation it shall be judicially lawful."
Similar views also find mention in Chapter VIII of Khula` of Hedayat which may be referred as under :- "now from the tradition which has been recited, appears that where the aversion is on the part of the wife, a khula' for more than the dower is disapproved ; and, on the other hand, the text before quoted shows that if the aversion be on the part of the husband, he should not take anything, and consequently not more than the dower a fortiori."
9. We further find that there is no difference of opinion on this question among Hanafi and Imamia Schools of Law in Islam. This fact gets support from the following relevant extracts of text books of acknowledged authority on Shia School of Thought :- From the above Shia Jafriayyah traditions and statements of jurists, it can safely be concluded that a deviation from the directive of the Holy Prophet (May peace be upon Him and His descendants) stopping from giving back more as quantum of fidyah in khula` given in the case of wife of Sabit bin Qais has been considered to be a great loss.
We believe that it has been so held rightly because for a Muslim the first and foremost is to have complete faith in Allah and his Holy Prophet (a. s.). A sermon of Hazrat A.I (a. s.) as ordained in Khutba No. 113 contained in Nahjul Balagha gives us guideline to achieve success to approach the realm of Allah. The relevant extract of that enlightened Khutba may be quoted for advantage as under :- "O People ! Try your best to praise God and to speak more and more of Him because this is the best discourse. Create an intense desire in your mind for the Heaven (Junnath) which is promise to the pious. Verily, His promises are true. Follow the mode of lit'e and characier of your Holy Prophet (May the peace of God be upon Him and His descendants) because it is the best way of leading a good life. Adhere to his traditions and implicitly obey his teachings because they are the best guide to a noble life . . . . . . Page 230 of Nahjul Balagha, 11th Edition, translated by Syed Muhammad Askari Jaffery.
10. The wisdom of Allah has not conferred upon a wife power to revoke marital ties at her own accord as and when she desires. Conversely a husband enjoys full and unfettered powers to terminate marital relations, unilaterally whenever he likes without assigning any reason. In the words of the Holy Qur'an it is the husband who controls the marriage ties. In order to strike a balance between these two extremes as well as to eliminate any chance of exploitation and extortion at the hands of some merciless husbands in a Muslim society, the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon Him and His descendants) being a true interpreter of Divine Laws approved the restoration of the property received by wife to her husband as a reasonable (fidyah) ransom in khula`. The Holy Qur'an enjoins husbands to retain. Their wives with kindness or to part with them with an equal consideration.
11. As stated above, a husband enjoys a dominant position in matrimonial matters in Muslim society. Resultantly there is always a likelihood of fleecing and robbing of helpless and poor wives by some revengeful husbands, if we detach our adherence from the traditions and teachings of the Holy Prophet (a. s.). Thus the total attachment and complete adherence with the traditions and Sunnah of the Apostle of God will ensure a noble and dignified life based upon love, mutual sense of respect and tolerance.
12. I,in view of the above discussion, am of the opinion that taking back more than what the husband has given to his wife as a quantum of ransom of khula` though not expressly prohibited in the Holy Qur'an, is a sheer deviation from the established traditions of the Holy Prophet (May peace be upon Him and His descendants). Therefore I totally disapprove any such fixation of ransom which evidently is in negation and defiance of the Commandment of the Holy Prophet of Allah (May peace be upon Him and His descendants).
13. The Courts in this sub-continent in their early decisions jointly were of the view that a Judge was not competent to compel a husband to give his wife a khula' divorce as it was considered that khula` is the sole act of the husband within his own discretion and cannot be demanded as a matter of right under Muslim Law but. In Mst. Balqis Fatima v. Najm-ul---Ikram Oureshi PLD 1959 Lah. 566, the Full Bench of this Court took a contrary view holding that the Court has got such power notwithstanding the unwillingness of the husband. In this luminous judgment it was answered by the Full Bench of this Court as under :- "The answer to the question referred is that the one is entitled to a dissolution of marriage on restoration of what she receives in consideration of marriage if the Judge apprehends that parties will not observe limits of God."
14. In the instant case the learned Single Judge in Chamber wrongly interpreted the statement made by the appellant in coming to a conclusion to the fixation of consideration for khula`. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the statement made by the appellant was in connection with what the respondent No. 1 would have given to her and not what she had left as dowry in his house. The relevant piece of her statement which has been wrongly interpreted by the learned Single Judge of this Court as well as learned Judge Family Court reads as follows :- The above statement is quite unambiguous and gives a clear reading of the mind of the appellant with regard to question of quantum of ransom of khrda`. It simply meant that the appellant showed her complete willingness to forego each and every thing in her husband's favour which could have been given to her by him for her release as a fidya but factually the husband did give nothing to be returned. Hence her statement is not indicative of this fact that she had ever agreed to part with her dowry as a consideration for her release by way of khula`. Therefore in the given circumstances of this case no question of restoration of any benefit by the wife to the husband arises. At the same time there is no tota of evidence on the record to suggest that the parties to the litigation had mutually agreed upon a certain specific quantum of ransom for khula`. In the absence of an g such material on the record, the learned Judge of Family Court ought not to have fixed the foregoing of her right to the recovery of dowry as a ransom in khula` but should have allowed khula` in consideration of her giving up of her right to the recovery of dower money which undisputed remains unpaid uptill now, in the light of the Divine Laws as discussed above . The finding of the learned Judge, Family Court is based upon no evidence, misapprehension of fact and law on the subject and as such was amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide impugned judgment under appeal is not sustainable under the law as discussed above and being so is susceptible to our interference in this appeal.
15. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal stands accepted and the impugned judgment of the learned Single, Judge in Chamber is set aside and it is hereby declared that the part of the impugned decree dated 15-1-1979 of respondent No. 2 which makes the khula' conditional on giving up appellant's right to the recovery of her dowry in favour of respondent No. 1 as a ransom of khula' is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
ZAKIUDDIN PAL, J.-The appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Respondent No. 1 which .Was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court allowing divorce on the basis of khula' on the condition that she would give up her right to recover her dowry in possession of the respondent as well as the amount of dower and the other articles given in marriage by respondent No. 1. The suit was resisted by respondent No. 1 on various grounds and as many as eight issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Issue No. 2 related to the right of the appellant to grant of decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula' and if so on what terms and conditions.
2. The appellant while appearing as P. W. 4 before the Judge, Family Court stated that if .She was granted decree for divorce on the basis of khula' then she was prepared to give up every thing but respondent No. 1 had not given her anything in marriage. That part of the decree granted by learned Judge, Family Court conditionally on giving up appellant's right to recover the dowry was challenged through Writ Petition No. 1312 of 1979 but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court mainly on the ground that she had agreed in her statement to give up everything including the dowry. The Inter Court Appeal was admitted to consider whether the appellant had made any such sweeping statement abandoning her right to recover dowry in addition to the articles given by respondent No. 1 in marriage as well as the amount of dower and further whether decree for dissolution of marriage could be granted under the law on restoration of what she had not received from her husband in consideration of marriage.
3. As mentioned above the appellant while appearing as P. W. 4 before the learned Judge, Family Court stated that if she was granted decree for dissolution of marriage then she was prepared to give up everything but respondent No. 1 had not given her anything in marriage, This part of her statement has been construed by the learned Judge, Family Court as saying that she was prepared to give up her claim not only to the articles receive by her from respondent No. 1 in consideration of marriage but also to the dowry which was given to her by her parents. I am afraid no such inference can be drawn from the statement of the appellant. That part of the statement made by the appellant is in one complete sentence which runs as follows in Urdu :- Careful examination of the language used by the appellant in this part of the statement shows that she is prepared to give up everything which she has received from her husband who as a matter of fact has not given her anything in consideration of marriage. If she had given up her right to recover her dowry from the respondent which has been found to be in his possession by the learned Judge then she would not have in the same breath stated that respondent No. 1, had not given her anything in marriage. She showed her willingness before the Lower Court to give up, anything given to her by respondent No. 1 in marriage and since nothing was given to her as alleged by her, therefore, question of giving up anything in consideration of divorce in lieu of 'khula" did not arise. The inference drawn from the language used by the appellant in the aforesaid part of her statement amounts to misreading of evidence which can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The finding, therefore, on this point given by the learned Judge, Family Court, as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court that the appellant gave up her right to retrieve her dowry being not tenable is hereby set aside
4. It has been found by the learned Judge, Family Court that on account of strange relations and hatred against each other the spouses cannot live within the limits of Allah. Since the appellant and respondent No. 1 cannot pull on together as husband and wife therefore, their marriage has been dissolved on the basis of right of 'khula' ' as asserted by the appellant.
5. The question which arises for consideration is as to what extent under the law a husband can be compensated when the wife has been granted decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula' and when she has not been found at fault. The English - version of the Verse No. .229 of Sura Baqr of the Holy Qur'an which is the basis of right of khula' runs a5 follows :- "Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep (them) in good fellow--ship or let (them) go with kindness, and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them, and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah, these it is that are the unjust."
Thy word khula' literally means "to put off". In terms of Shariat khul'a is that right which vests in wife on the basis of which, she can get her marriage dissolved after payment of some compensation to her husband. As observed by Maulana Abul A'la Maududi in Tafhim-ul-Qur'an Volume .1, page 175, if husband and wife both settle amongst themselves without intervention of the Court then whatever compensation is settled, it will be liable to be paid by the wife to the husband to get her marriage dissolved on the basis of khula'. However, if the dispute is referred to the Court then it will be. For the Court to decide as to whether the parties have developed so much estrangement and hatred against each other that they cannot pull on together as husband and wife within the limits prescribed by God. In that case the Court will be entitled to fix the amount of compensa--petition to be paid to the husband who will be obliged to divorce on that basis. It has been further stated that according to the Muslim Jurists amount of compensation should not exceed that what has been given by the husband to his wife in consideration of marriage. Divorce based upon khula' amounts to laying down by the husband of his right and authority over his wife at her instance on acceptance of consideration. According to Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad b. Hambal every divorce in lieu of consideration is called khula'. (Please see the Muslim Law of Divorce by K. N. Ahmad, p. 220). This view has been followed in Munshi Buzlur - Rahman v. Lateef- un-Nissa 8 MIA379, by their Lordships of the Privy Council holding that a divorce by khula' is a divorce with the consent and at the instance of the wife and in which she agrees to give compensation to the husband for her release from the marriage-tie. It has been held that in such a case terms of the agreement can be settled between the husband and wife who may give up her dower any other rights or make any other arrangement for the benefit of the husband in consideration of divorce based upon khula'. It has been held in Mst. Balqis Fatima v. Najm-ul-Ikram Qureshi PLD 1956 Lab. 599, that wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on restoration of what she has received in consideration of marriage from her husband, if the Court apprehends that parties will not observe "limits of God". It has been held that this is not equivalent to granting a right to wife to come to the Court at any time and obtain khula' if she is prepared to restore the benefit she has received. There is an important limitation on her right. It is only the Court's apprehension that the limits of God will not be observed in their relations towards one another, the spouses will not obey God, that a har--monions marriage-life as envisaged by Islam will not be possible then marriage will be dissolved on the basis of khula'. It has been further held that wife cannot have a divorce for every passing impulse, the Court will consider whether the rift between the parties is a serious one though it may not consider the reasons for the rift. The Court can also take into consideration that wife may go wrong if dissolution is not ordered as Islam prefers divorce to adultery. It was found in that case by a Division Bench of this Court that since husband and wife could not live together, therefore, the marriage was liable to be dissolved on restoration of the benefit received by the wife.
It was found from nikahnama that the wife had received ornaments of the value of Rs. 2,500 from the husband at the time of nikah. The aforesaid amount was paid to the husband as compensation for 'khula', and the marriage was dissolved on that basis.
6. There are two well-known Traditions about khula'. The first relates to the case of Jamilah, daughter of Abd Allah b. Ubyy b. Sala] and wife of Thabit Ibn Qays. One day she appeared before the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, "O Messenger of Allah" I and Thabit can never live together. I saw him coming from the other side with some men. 1 found that he had the, smallest stature, was the blackest and ugliest amongst them; I swear by God that I do not dislike: him on account of any religious or moral turpitude, but I dislike him on account of his ugliness. I swear by God that if I do not fear God I would spit on his face when he comes to me. O, Messenger of Allah"
You can see how beautiful I am while Thabit is an ugly person. I do not blame him for any depravity in his religious practices or morality, but I fear that I may be guilty of transgression of the injunctions of Islam". The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) asked her if she was prepared to return the orchard given to her by Thabit as dower. She replied "Yes 1 and if he demands more, then I am ready to give him more than that". The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said "No ! No !
More than what he had given to you". The Holy Prophet asked Thabit to take back the orchard and release her from the marriage-tie by divorcing her which he did.
7. The other Tradition relates to another wife of Thabit named Habibah, daughter of Suhayl. One day in the early morning, when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) came out of his house, he saw Habibah waiting outside. On inquiry she stated that she could not pull on with Thabit. When Thabit came there, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him, "Habibah has complained against you". Habibah said "O Messenger of Allah" I have still got all that Thabit had given me_ as dower. "The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) then ordered Thabit to take it back and release Habibah, from marriage-tie. In both the cases referred to above the Holy Prophet, (peace be upon him) did not allow both the wives of Thabit to restore more than what they had received in consideration of marriage for dissolution of their marriages on the basis of khula'.
8. In view of the injunction as contained in Verse No. 229 of Sura Baqr of the Holy Qur'an reproduced above as well as the two Traditions referred to above Muslim Jurists as a general rule have held that the amount of consideration paid or to be paid for 'khula' should not exceed the amount of wife's dower or property given to her by the husband. Some of the Jurists no doubt while relying upon the word "What she gives up to become free thereby," as used--in Verse No. 2.29 of Sura Baqr have held that any amount of consideration even in excess of that given to the wife by her husband can be determined while dissolving marriage on the basis of khula'. This view has, however, not be agreed to by a vast majority of the Muslim Jurists who have held that if the matter with regard to compensation for grant of khula' is settled by the husband and wife amongst themselves then the agreed amount of compensation will be liable to be paid by the wife, but if the matter is referred to the Court as in the present case then the Court if of the opinion that they both cannot live within the limits of God would determine the amount not exceeding that what had been received. By the wife from her husband. The Hanafi view is the same which is held by majority of Muslim Jurists as discussed above. Even according to Shia School of Thought as discussed in Mohemmedan Law by Syed Ameer A.I, 7th Edition., Volume 2, page 472, "as a general rule, everything which may be given in dower may serve as a compensation for khula' whatever is lawful for dower or is cap--able of being accepted as dower, may lawfully be given in exchange for khula', anything that can validly be dower, can validly be compensation, whether it be a thing in existence or not as suckling the child of the union, the mother's right of hizanat, her or her child's maintenance, etc.".
Shia view with regard to determining the amount of compensation in case of khula' has been discussed in detail by my learned brother Karrar Hussain, J., in his separate judgment.
9. As stated in "A Code of Muslim Personal Law" by Justice Dr. Tanzil--ur-Rehman at present Chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology at page 517 of his book, there is some difference of opinion amongst the companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) as well as their successors so far as ,quantum of compensation of khula' is concerned. According to some, taking back more from the husband than that given to his wife is disapproved, while according to others taking back more is permissible which according to still others is disapproved. Amongst the companions of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Abu Bakr considers the taking of more to be unlawful and maintains that the husband shall be made to return the same to the wife. However, Abd-al-Razzak has reported from Mamar and Mamar from Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Aqil that Rabi bt. Mu'awwdh b. Afra told him that she obtained khula' from her husband in return for every thing that she was owner of. When the matter was taken to Caliph Hazrat Uthman, he held the same to be lawful.
According to the third view Hazrat A.I b. Abu Talib as reported through Hakam b. Uyainiyah forbade the husband from taking back more what he had given. .The author has further given the views of Four Imams with reference to their works. According to Imam Abu Hanifah taking back more is disapproved while Imam Malik and Imam Shafi both hold that taking back more than the dower is lawful. The view of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal corresponds to that of Imam Abu Hanifah.
10. In the present case none of the parties has been found to be at fault so far as dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula` is concerned. It has been found that on account of the hatred and aversion against each other they cannot live together within the limits of God. Marriage therefore has been rightly dissolved by the Judge, Family Court. However,quantum of compensation as fixed by him is not according to law and facts available on record. The appellant never gave up her right to claim dowry still in' possession of respondent No. 1. She only gave up that what she receive from her husband in consideration of marriage
11. The. Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) upon whom the Holy Qur---an was revealed was the best person in the world to correctly interpret the contents thereof. In spite of the words used in Verse No. 229 of Sura Baqr to the effect that thereby no blame on the husband and wife for what wife gives up to him to become free, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) directed Jamilah and Habibah both wives of Thabit b. Qays not to give more in compensation than the amount of dower fixed in consi--deration of marriage. There being no agreement between the parties with regard to quantum of compensation for khula` and there being nothing on record to show as to what other property had been given by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of marriage, the marriage stands dissolved under the law on payment of amount of dower by the appellants to respondent No. I. The appeal stands accepted in the terms stated above without any order as to costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case