' This writ petition has been filed by the wife to call in question order of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, dated 5-9-1985 whereby appeal of Murid Hussain respondent No,2 against the dismissal of his suit for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and his suit was decreed.
2. Facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No,2 brought a suit Bagainst his wife, the present petitioner, for restitution of conjugal rights Petitioner resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending therein that the respondent had divorced her on 9-2-1983 in the presence of the witnesses after receipt of Rs,1,000 from her. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the restitution of conjugal rights? O.P.P.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file this suit? O.P.P.
(3) Relief.
3. Both the parties led evidence, oral as also documentary, in support of their respective contentions. Learned Judge, Family Court, Khujab after considering the evidence led by the parties upheld the contention of the petitioner and consequently dismissed the suit of respondent No,2 vide judgment, dated 1-12-1984. Respondent No,2 preferred an appeal which, as stated above, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who did not accept the petitioner's version regarding divorce and accordingly decreed the suit of the respondent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Impugned judgment shows that the learned Additional District Judge has not accepted the version of the petitioner that she had been divorced by the respondent. Divorce deed Exh. D.I. Relied upon by the petitioner has been brushed aside with the observation that it "is a small chit on plain paper. The same has not been written on any stamp paper." It has been further noted that the notice of the alleged divorce was not given by any of the parties to the Chairman of the Union Council concerned. Learned Additional Judge has, therefore, held that even if it be presumed that the respondent-plaintiff had executed the divorce deed Exh.D.I., Talaq did not become effective as no notice thereof was given to the Chairman of the Union. Council. Learned Additional District Judge has also held that the plaintiff-respondent having instituted the suit on 23-4-1983, the divorce allegedly given on 9-2-1983 would be deemed to have been revoked with the institution of the suit.
5. Finding of the learned Additional District Judge disbelieving the factum of divorce is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and is supported by sound reasons. Learned Additional District Judge has given good reasons in discarding the divorce deed Exh.D.1, This Court sitting in constitutional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise the evidence for coming to a different conclusion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge based on want of notice of Talaq. He contended with reference to Chuhar v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and another PLD 1984 Lah. 234 that omission to give notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council did not affect the validity of the Talaq. After some argument, however, learned counsel conceded that the case cited by him was distinguishable on facts and was not applicable to the present case. In the case cited by the learned counsel, factum of divorce was not in dispute.
Finding, in fact, was that the Talaq had been given with full determination and by mutual consent, and it was in these circumstances that it was held that keeping in view the object of the notice which was to prevent hasty dissolution of marriage by Talaq pronounced by the husband unilaterally, "the non-giving of notice under section 7(1) of the Ordinance does not render the Talaq in effected." In the present case, the very factum of Talaq is in dispute as the respondent had denied having executed the divorce deed Exh.D.1. The case cited by the learned counsel has, therefore, no application to the facts of the instant case. Effect of non-giving of notice has been examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported as Muhammad Salahuddin Khan v. Muhammad Nazir Siddiqi and others 1984 SCMR 583 wherein it has been held that in view of the provisions of section 7 of the?Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, Talaq becomes effective only after notice of Talaq is given to the Chairman and the period of three months provided for bringing about the reconciliation between the parties had expired. It has been further observed that "where the husband does not give a notice of Talaq to the Chairman, it can be deemed that he has revoked the Talaq." Admitted fact in the present case is that the respondent did not give a notice of the alleged Talaq to the Chairman and that he filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 23- 4-1983 whereas the alleged divorce had taken place on 9-2-1983. In view of, these facts, the alleged divorce would be deemed to have been revoked by the respondent within 90 days thereof.
View taken by the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf proceeds on correct premises, legal as also factual.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not merit any interference in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed in limine.