1. This petition is constitutional jurisdiction by Muhammad Yasin petitioner calls in question order of learned Judge, Family Court, dated 26-2-1986, whereby Razia Begum respondent, was allowed Khula' subject to certain terms. Facts in brief are: Respondent Razia Begum was married to petitioner on 23-2-1976. Except for a brief period which the plaintiff stated to be about 22 days and the defendant 2 years, when both the parties were shown to have been living as husband and wife, rest of the period has been consumed in litigation; plaintiff attempting to extricate her from the marriage bond and the defendant trying to bind her to the marriage. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiff lived with defendant for 22 days only. During this short period of stay, it was averred that defendant not only habitually maltreated the plaintiff, but misappropriated her ornaments and other belongings also. It was further alleged that the defendant-husband had deserted the plaintiff and had neglected to provide maintenance as also failed to perform matrimonial obligations. Plaintiff complained that she had developed dislike and hatred for the defendant and was not prepared to live with him as his wife. She claimed Khula'. Defendant resisted the suit and denied the averments made in the plaint. Family Court raised necessary issues, recorded evidence, heard parties and found that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on ground of Khula' and accordingly decreed her suit vide impugned judgment.
2. Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, addressed the Court and contended that the Family Court though possessed of jurisdiction, had no materiel before it to find that the breach in matrimonial relations was irretrievable which made the future stay together of the spouses impossible. Learned counsel argued that Khula' cannot be had on a mere asking of the wife and that an erring wife should not be given a licence by the Court to break the marriage as and when she chose to do so. In support, reference to the previous litigation and the decisions arrived at was, made and it was argued that Razia Begum had no claim to seek Khula'.
3. Parties were married on 23-2-1976. They lived together for a short span of time. Their union was not blessed with any issue. Plaintiff's elder sister was married to a brother of Muhammad Yasin petitioner. Razia Begum in her statement had levelled wild allegations not only against her husband, but her elder sister also. It was stated by her that Muhammad Yasin was having illicit relations with her elder sister. She also deposed that she had no more liking for her husband and was not prepared to live with him in any circumstances. Allegations as to ill-treatment and cruelty were also repeated in evidence. Defendant denied the allegations. It is in evidence that Razia Begum had earlier brought a suit for divorce and for recovery of her dower money, etc. Against Muhammad Yasin in the Family Court at Naushehra. Claim as to divorce did not succeed, but decree for recovery of Rs.3,50U representing the dower amount was passed in her favour on 9-10- 1982.
4. A separate suit for maintenance brought by her was dismissed on 19-9-1984 by Judge, Family Court, Naushehra. Record reveals that in order to have matrimonial relations restored, petitioner also instituted a suit against Razia Begum for restitution of conjugal rights, which succeeded on 7- 5-1985. Appeal preferred against the aforenoticed decision was dismissed on 3-10-1985. Record also shows that throughout the period except for the one in the beginning, Razia Begum was adamant in staying away and showed her clear disinclination to join the petitioner. In the long period of their separation, parties have not succeeded to abridge their mutual differences. Long Court litigation may have also added its share to the already existing bitterness between the parties. In the absence of any evidence it can be safely inferred that Razia Begum is asking for divorce on her own initiative and has not been prompted by any other person. It is not in dispute that the Family Court in course of hearing of the divorce suit attempted to bring about reconciliation between the parties, but these efforts also failed. Considering the evidence, circumstances and probabilities of the case, Family Court felt convinced that the existing unhappy relations between the parties held out no hope for their future happy living together within the limits prescribed by Allah. In the circumstances, purpose of marriage clearly seemed to be frustrated. Plaintiff has shown a firm stand in asking for divorce. From the evidence and her conduct, a clear inference is available that reconciliation between the two was not possible. When such are the circumstances, it is better to separate, then to live in an atmosphere perpetually saturated with suspicions, mutual distrust, discord and hatred for each other. In an atmosphere of the type aforenoticed, human life becomes a mere waste. As has been noticed in several pronouncements of the superior Courts that Islam does not thrust upon the parties a marriage devoid of bliss and happiness. A clear reading of the impugned judgment indicates that the Family Court which had the additional advantage of seeing and noticing the demeanour and behaviour of the parties inter se found, on evidence, that plaintiff was entitled, to separation on the basis of Khula'. In coming to the aforenoticed conclusion, the Court has neither omitted nor ignored from its consideration the material placed before it. In the absence of right of appeal, conclusions arrived at, are not reviewable in constitutional jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to decide the dispute was not disputed. The fact that the Court may have come to some erroneous conclusion, was not a ground to cause interference in constitutional jurisdiction. It is well-established that the Court which has the jurisdiction to decide has also the jurisdiction to decide it right or wrong. Question of Khula', in my opinion, was essentially a question of fact and has rightly been resolved on the basis of evidence led in the case. In none of the decisions given earlier by the Family Courts, issue of Khula' has been noticed. Therefore, they do not put any fetters on the powers of the Family Court to allow Khula' to the respondent. It is correct that Khula' cannot be allowed on the mere asking of a wife.
5. She can only succeed if she proves to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court that there exists an irremediablebreach between the parties which makes it impossible for her to perform her part of contract within the limits prescribed by God Almighty. When the case is examined from this angle, I have no manner of doubt, in my mind, to say that the plaintiff had succeeded in making out a clear case for Khula' divorce. In these circumstnaces, I see no adequate ground to differ with the views of the Court below and find that the impugned decision has been arrived at on the correct analysis of the evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity of the type which could render it to be without jurisdiction or without lawful authority. Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed in limine.