' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--- Briefly, the facts of the case as stated in plaint before Family Court are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,1 was solemnized on 28-10-2000 and that respondent No,1 deserted the petitioner/plaintiff from his house in wearing apparels in the year 2002; and that minor namely, Muhammad Naeem was born on 2-9-2002. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, her parents incurred the delivery expenses. It is mentioned in para 4 of this petition that respondent No,1 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on the basis of self- invented story to avoid the payment of maintenance allowance and that the respondent No,1 divorced her on 23-8-2006. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance for a period commencing from February, 2002 to November, 2006 at the rate of Rs,2000/- per month.
She filed another suit for recovery of dowry articles and for an amount of Rs,50,000/- as compensation on account of divorce without any reasonable justification. The Judge Family Court vide judgment dated 19-3-2008 decreed the suit to the extent of maintenance allowance of the minor @ Rs,1,000/- per month with 25% increase per annum whereas to the extent of compensation, the suit was dismissed.
2. The petitioner and the minor filed an appeal before the appellate court assailing the order of Judge, Family Court. The appellate court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23-6-2008 modified the decree of the Family Court and enhanced the maintenance allowance of the minor from Rs,1000/- to Rs,1500/- from the date of institution of suit till his majority along with 25% annual increase.
3. Consequently, the aforementioned judgments and decrees were assailed before this Court through Writ Petition No,1063 of 2008 and the same was decided in the following terms:- "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to remit the matter to the learned appellate court to re-decide the matter on the available record after providing the opportunities to both the parties.
11. Resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 23-6-2008 passed by the learned appellate court is set aside to the extent of petitioner No,l. The case is remitted to the learned appellate court to re-decide the matter afresh after providing fair opportunities to the parties."
4. In the post remand proceedings, the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, held that the petitioner is not entitled to the return of dowry articles, any maintenance allowance and the payment of Rs,50,000/- as compensation. The said judgment has been assailed through this constitutional petition.
5. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner was entitled for the maintenance allowance during the subsistence of marriage as according to her the respondent No,1 failed to bring any material on the file to substantiate that she declined to join him. He adds that since the respondent No,1 divorced the petitioner/plaintiff without any lawful justification, therefore, she was entitled to the compensation of an amount of Rs,50,000/- on account of the unjustified divorce. With these submission, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of the appellate court be set aside, the suit be decreed in her favour and that a declaration be made that she is entitled to maintenance allowance and also for the damages/compensation on account of unjustified divorce.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that the Judge Family Court has no jurisdiction to award any claim for the alleged unjustified divorce and that if any such condition was incorporated in Nikahnama, the same was un-Islamic. He adds that concurrent findings of facts, recorded by the courts below cannot be looked into in the constitutional jurisdiction; therefore, this petition merits dismissal.
7. Arguments of the counsel for the parties heard. It is borne out of the record that respondent No,1 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which would indicate that he had been making efforts and requiring the petitioner to join him. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material that she made any effort for reconciliation to join her husband and in these circumstances, when the petitioner failed to perform her marital obligation; she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. So far as the claim of the petitioner for the alleged unjustified divorce is concerned, the honourable Supreme Court in (PLD 2011 SC 260) has settled the law on the point that such a claim is not actionable before the Court. Any such condition imposed in the Nikahnama for the award of the damages on account of alleged unjustified divorce have been declared against the basic principle of law by the honourable Supreme Court in (2008 SCM R 186). It is held:--- "His only contention was that such condition was embodied in the Nikahnama by way of safety and for prolongation of marriage contract, as it would deter for both the parties from bringing an end to the marriage contract. This contention to say the least is absolutely frivolous as it is against the basic principle of law which require the parties to remain 'in marital ties in a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere and are not required to be bound by stringent conditions to remain in marriage bond."
And thus it is held that the claim of petitioner/plaintiff as compensation on account of the alleged unjustified divorce is not actionable.
9. In view of foregoing discussion, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.