' The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved on 7th December, 1981 on the ground of Khula. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that there was no justification for dissolution of marriage and also that the trial Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction.
2. The case was heard by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal while according to the petitioner the wife resides in Okara. The onus of this issue was placed on the petitioner but he was unable to discharge it and the contention of the wife that she was working at Sahiwal in a school was accepted. Since at the relevant time the wife was residing at Sahiwal, the Court at Sahiwal did have the territoral jurisdiction. As regards the contention of the petitioner that no decree of dissolution could be granted, it is enough to notice that the trial Court was quite clear in coming to the conclusion that the relations between the parties were such that if they are compelled to live together they are not likely to observe the limits of God. After this finding a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula can legitimately be passed. The learned counsel has also argued that nothing has been given to the husband in return for Khula. As regards this question, no evidence was led before the Court regarding the benefits which the wife had received from the husband and for which orders could be made for its return. It was after consideration of this evidence that the Court consciously decided that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit out of Khula.
' In view of the above considerations the orders of the Judge Family Court do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.