MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- In this revision petition, judgment and decree dated 26.10.1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Pakpattan, accepting the appeal of the respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.3.1985 dismissing her suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been challenged.
2. The respondent who was the wife of the petitioner, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.10,000/- based oil agreement Ex.Pl according to which the parties agreed that in case of divorce to the respondent the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner defended the suit and denied the execution of the said agreement in his written-statement. He also took up the plea that through Ex. Dl which is a Talaq nama, he divorced the respondent on her own wish and it was settled between the parties in a Punchayat that the respondent would not be entitled to recover anything from the petitioner as such according to him this document Ex. Dl was sent to the respondent as Talaq and since it was based on the said arrangement therefore the respondent was not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner. The learned trial Court held that Ex.p.I was a void agreement for it operated as a restriction on free right of husband to divorce. In respect of Ex.D-1, the findings of the learned trial Court under issue No.1 was that it was not proved to be an agreement between the parties by which the respondent was bound not to claim any amount in lieu of divorce. The appellate court reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue No.4, and held that Ex.Pl could not be treated to be a void agreement inasmuch as according to the Nikahnama it was permissible, that the husband could be subjected to restriction regarding his right to divorce because under column No.19 thereof such restriction could be put.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that against column No.19 of the nikahnama no restriction was placed against the right of the petitioner to divorce therefore, according to the agreement settled at the time of marriage the petitioner did not agree regarding restriction on his right to divorce the respondent therefore, he was free to divorce her for which she was not entitled to recover any amount.
4. I have examined the nikahnama copy of which has been placed on the record which was produced before the trial Court as Ex. P3. The column No. 19 reads as under:- The opposite space of this column which is meant for mentioning any such restriction a line has been drawn which means that the parties at that time did not agree to put restriction on the right of divorce of the petitioner. This fact would not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the nikah was nothing but an agreement between the parties and there was no bar under the law for the parties to enter into another agreement restricting the right of divorce of the petitioner which would amount to novation of contract. Learned lower appellate Court has held that execution of Ex.P-1 was proved on the record. The petitioner in the first instance in the written-statement denied the execution of the said document while appearing in court as his own witness, he admitted his signatures on the said document but denied that he agreed to the said terms as he was not aware that the signatures were being obtained on such a document. It has been rightly held by the lower appellate Court in these circumstances that this plea could not be accepted since it was not raised in the written-statement and rather he denied out-right in the execution of the said document in the written- statement. The agreement was also rightly held to be a valid. Form of Nikahnama has been prescribed under Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and column No. 19 thereof is indicative of the fact that the relevant law treated it to be a lawful clause if restriction were placed on the right of divorce of the husband. Since the Family Laws were promulgated primarily to safe- guard the interest of the wife therefore, the said clause has been provided therein to achieve the said purpose. The findings of the trial Court regarding Talaqnama Ex. D1 were not shown to be wrong inasmuch as it was rightly held by the learned trial Court that had the said Talaqnama been based on the agreement it would not have been sent through post. I have also noticed that the plea that the said Talaq was pronounced by the petitioner according to wishes of the respondent in lieu of abandonement of her rights to recover anything from the petitioner, the petitioner would have obtained thumb mark or signatures of the respondent on it. Beside this, the petitioner did not challenge the findings of the trial Court on issue No.1 before the lower appellate Court though as a respondent he could challenge the correctness of findings on the said issue.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the lower appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment. No justification exists for interference, by this Court under Section 115 C.P.C.
The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.