The petitioner Azhar Hussain Nasim has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court dated 3-10-1987 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 Mst. Shamim Akhtar instituted a suit for dissolution of her marriage against the petitioner at Faisalabad and he in turn filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her at Sheikhupura.
The suit of the petitioner was transferred from Sheikhupura to Faisalabad. Both the suits were consolidated for their decision on merits. The parties contested the suit by filing written statements in the respective cases. The learned Judge Family Court, Faisalabad framed as many as 7 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of respondent No. 2 and consequently the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner was dismissed and her suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 3-10-1987.
2. The learned counsel forcefully contended that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence and consequently he has come to a wrong conclusion. He states that there was sufficient evidence available on the record to dismiss the suit for dissolution of marriage and the suit of the petitioner should have been decreed. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that every piece of evidence available on the record has been considered by the learned trial Court and after considering the case as a whole the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that the parties cannot live as husband and wife. There is no evidence which has not been considered by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel next submits that Iftikhar Ahmad, P.W. 1, Amanat A.I P.W. 2 have fully supported the statement made by respondent No. 2 Mst. Shamim Akhtar P.W.
3. The petitioner produced Safdar A.I D.W. 1, Shahbaz Hussain Shah, D.W. 2, Muhammad Sharif D.W. 3 and he himself appeared as D.W. 4 in support of his case. The evidence of all these witnesses was considered by the learned Judge Family Court. The learned Judge held that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are undoubtedly close relatives of the respondent/plaintiff but they are resident of the place where the parties lived together as husband and wife. The statements' of these two witnesses have been relied upon by the learned trial Court on the ground that the close relatives could know better about the matrimonial affairs of the spouses rather than the strangers. I have myself seen the evidence of the said witnesses which show that the petitioner has been beating the respondent/plaintiff. Mst. Shamim Akhtar while making the statement as her own witness as P.W. 3 disclosed that the petitioner is a man of bad character. She mentioned in her statement that one Mst. Boondo is a woman of ill repute and that she used to visit the house of the petitioner in her presence. She used to object to her visiting the house of her husband. Upon this the petitioner at a number of occasions gave her a severe beating and at one occasion she was strangulated by putting a piece of cloth around her throat and that with great difficulty she escaped from his clutches by hitting his hand. Thereafter she went to the house of her (sic) at Shah Kot. This evidence of the respondent has been believed and on the basis thereof, her suit has been decreed dissolving her marriage with the petitioner. The evidence produced by the writ petitioner has been disbelieved. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the competent Court after considering the entire evidence of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity much less any jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment and decree. The judgment is well based in law and evidence. 1n my considered view, the writ petition, is wholly misconceived and as such the same is incompetent.
The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the petition, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.