1. ' By the constitution petition, the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf has called in question the judgment and decree passed by respondent No, 2 on 5-1-1984 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No, 1, Mst. Salma Bibi.
2. ' After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition was dismissed in limine by short order dated 21-3-84. Following are the reasons of the said order.
3. ' It appears from the memo. Of the petition that the petitioner was married with respondent No, 1 for six years and has a daughter from the said wedlock. However the respondent No, 1 filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage in spite of the fact that the petitioner provided all amenities of life to her within his resources. The suit was contested by the petitioner who denied the allegations made against him by the respondent No,1 in her suit. The learned Family Court ultimately decreed the ing the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No, 1.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. He was however unable to point out any illegality in the judgment.
5. He further submitted that the learned lower Court did not appreciate the evidence led by the petitioner properly and as such it gave an erroneous decision. It may be observed that the appeal is barred from the decision of Family Court decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage. Perhaps the intention is not to re-open and agitate the issues based on factual material at the appellate forum. Therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to achieve the said object indirectly by having recourse to filing constitution petition. Even otherwise this Court cannot go into the factual aspect of the case and under take re-appraisal of the evidence in its writ jurisdiction. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the lower Court to produce his case. He however could not elaborate this argument. Even if the learned Family Court had declined to give adjournment or extend time to enable the petitioner to produce his evidence, such order made by the said Court was obviously discretionary and it cannot be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction.
6. ' In view of the above, the petition being without merit was dismissed in limine as mentioned above.