1. ' The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit before the learned Family Court Dadu for jactitation of her marriage inter alia, alleging that no NIKAH ever took place between, her and the respondent No,3 as according to the petitioner the respondent had been falsely claiming the petitioner to be his legally wedded-wife. The respondent No,3 filed written statement denying the allegations. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded by the learned Family Judge. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent examined four witnesses in support of their respective contentions after which the suit was decreed by the learned Family Court in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No,3 filed appeal before the learned District-Judge Dadu who by his judgment, dated 26-5-1982, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the learned Family Court.
2. ' According to the learned District Judge there was sufficient evidence on record to show that marriage had been solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent No,3 and consequently the learned District Judge did not agree with the findings of the learned Family Court which had found the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as not having taken place.
3. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the findings were reversed.
4. ' I have heard Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ahmed Khan Barakzai, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. ' Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed has raised a two fold contention before me. Firstly, his argument is that the learned District Judge has grossly misread the evidence recorded by the learned Family Court and secondly, that admittedly the Nikah had not been registered as required by section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 which consequently gave rise to presumption that Nikah had not been performed. It has therefore, been argued by the learned counsel that in view of much presumption a heavy burden lay on the respondent No,3 to prove Nikah. Reliance was placed by the counsel on Mst. Nasim Akhtar v. The State PLD 1968 Lah. 84 and De. A.L.M. Abdulla v. Rokaya Khatoon PLD 1969 Dacca 47. Mr.Ahmed Khan Barkzai, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that non-registration of Nikah could not make the marriage invalid. Reference has also been made to section 24 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, according to which the Family Courts are required to inform the Union Councils concerned about the cases where the marriage solemnized under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 have not been }'egistered in accordance with the provisions of that Ordinance, which according to the counsel clearly shows that non- registration cannot render the Nikah invalid.
6. ' The contentions raised by Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed appear to be devoid of merit. First of all, I do not find that the learned District Judge has misread any evidence recorded in the case by the learned Family Court. The only instance cited by Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed was, that according to respondent No,3, it was one Abdul Rahim who had performed the Nikah but according to the other witnesses of the respondent P.W. Ayub had performed the Nikah. Consequently it was argued by the learned counsel that the learned district Judge had failed to notice this discrepancy in the evidence.
7. According to me, the argument is completely misconcieved. Although this court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction can go behind a judgment or an order in cases of misreading of evidence, but no such defect has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. Mr.Sabihuddin has referred only to certain discrepancies in the evidence which have no significance. The learned District Judge has based his findings on the basis of entire evidence recorded in the case, which shows that Nikah between the petitioner and the respondent No,3 had been I Performed by P.W.
8. Mohammad Yaqoob. In fact Mohammad Yaqoob himself was examined as a witness in the case who stated that Nikah had been performed by him. In view of the circumstances I do not agree with the first contention of Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed.
9. ' So far as the second contention of the counsel is concerned, it has been argued that non- registration of Nikah was an important factor in the case which has been ignored by the learned District Judge. The argument is that the learned District Judge has failed to take into consideration the nature of evidence which was required to rebut the presumption which could be raised in respect of non-existence of marriage between the parties. In this respect the first case referred to by him does not support him at all as in that case one Mst.Nasim Akhtar had been charged for committing offence under section 302 PPC . A question arose in the case whether she was married to the deceased Mohammad Ashiq and it came in evidence that Nikah had not been entered in the register maintained by the Registrar of Marriage after promulgation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. Consequently the High Court of Lahore on the basis of evidence of witnesses and non- registration of Nikah came to a conclusion that Mst.Nasim Akhtar had not been married to the deceased. These findings of the Court, as it appears, were not wholly based on the absence of registration of Mst.Nasim Akhtar's marriage but on the entire evidence recorded by the trial Court on the point. However, the next case cited by Mr.Sabihuddin Ahmed supports him to some extent as 'in that case, it was held by the High Court of Dacca that non-registration of Nikah could cause doubt on solemnization of such marriage. Be that as it may, but when evidence adduced by the respondent No,3. In support of the marriage has been relied upon by the learned appellate Court, 'any presumption existing on account of non-registration of marriage stood rebutted. Whether such evidence adduced by the respondent No,3 was sufficient to rebut such presumption was for .The trial Court or the appellate Court to consider and this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot go into such matters. In Ghulam Fatima v. Mst. Anwar 1981 CLC 1651, it was held' by the Lahore High Court that although contravention of the provisions of section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance D could be visited by punishment provided in the Ordinance, but such contravention could not render the marriage invalid. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Ahmad Khan Barakzai in this respect on PLD E 1982 F SC 42. I am consequently of the view that the impugned judgment is not liable to be quashed.
10. ' The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.