' This writ petition assailing the validity of the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad, respondent 2, dated the 16th July, 1980, dismissing the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage against respondent 1 and of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, respondent 3, dated the 23rd June, 1981, endorsing in appeal the first mentioned judgment arises out of the following circumstances. Mst. Kalsoom, petitioner, is father's sister's daughter of Muhammad Aslam, respondent 1. They were married on the 27th February, 1970. They did not live together for long. They have no offspring. On the 24th May, 1978, the petitioner initiated action seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds that respondent 3 had been treating her with cruelty, that he had been associating with women of evil repute, that he had misappropriated her ornaments and that she was entitled to khula' as she had developed marked hatred against him and it was not possible for the two to live as man and wife. Respondent 1 controverted the petitioner's allegations and contested the suit. The verdict having gone against the petitioner in the trial as well as in the appellate Court she has invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim of khula`. He maintained that the learned Courts below misread the evidence and ignored to consider the material evidence to reach the wrong conclusion that the petitioner's demand for khula was not justifiable. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it may be useful to see how the learned Courts below have dealt with the point in controversy. The learned trial Court's finding on the issue touching khula is reproduced below :- "There is no serious rift between the parties. No criminal litigation has ever started between their families. They are closely related besides being husband and wife. There is nothing on the file to prove that the parties will not live together within the limits of God. Issue not proved."
' The learned appellate Court disposed of the matter saying that :- "With regard to the alleged extreme hatred which she had developed against the defendant, no evidence has been produced. Even the plaintiff had not stated anything that she had developed extreme hatred that she could not live as wife of the defendant and that she was ready to forego her dower, maintenance and other rights and to get divorce. On the mere claim of the plaintiff that she was entitled to the decree for dissolution on the basis of khula` was hardly sufficient to give a finding in her favour. The finding of the learned trial Judge on this issue is also confirmed."
2. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the petitioner strengthens the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge and the learned Additional District Judge decided the petitioner's case for khula' without having a look at the evidence. Explaining the alleged misdeeds of respondent 1 the petitioner stated in unequivocal words that she could not lead a happy married lif with him. She expressed her readiness to give up her claim to arti- " which were I in: with respondent 1, as also maintenance and all other rights. Her other witnesses spoke of the ill treatment meted out by respondent 1 to the petitioner and bore testimony to the fact that the two could not live happily as man and wife. Respondent 1 led evidence in respect of unsuccessful attempts made by him in approaching parents of the petitioner for inducing them to make her live with him. Respondent 1 did not lay his finger on the integrity of the petitioner. The parties' parents, so closely related as they are, must have been the last persons to desire the dissolution of marriage. They would have made earnest efforts to make the parties live together. It seems that the rift between the parties has become so wide that it is not possible to bring about their reconciliation so that they can live within the bounds laid down by Almighty God. Therefore, the petitioner's demand for khula` was not without justification. Had the learned trial and the appellate Courts properly considered and read the evidence their judgments would have been different.
Their finding flowing from ignoring to take into account the evidence brought on the record cannot but be declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect. The petition is consequently accepted and the petitioner is granted khula'. Her suit for dissolution of marriage is decreed ; in consideration she will not claim anything in respect of her dowry, maintenance, dower, etc., from respondent 3. The parties are left to bear their own costs.