Petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married in May, 1984 however, the matrimonial harmony did not last for long; consequently, they fell apart and the respondent sought dissolution of the marriage on 2-9-1985, on the grounds of habitual cruelty, false allegations of adultery having been levelled against her, immoral life of the petitioner, misappropriation of dowry, irreconcilable age difference of the parties and Khula, which was responded by the petitioner with a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The two suits were consolidated and out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the defendant has treated the plaintiff with cruelty? OPP.
(2) Whether the defendant has levelled the false charge of adultery against the plaintiff? OPP.
(3) Whether the defendant leads an immoral life and associates with women of easy virtue? OPP.
(4) whether the defendant has misappropriated the articles of dowry? Opp.
(5) Whether there is a lot of difference in the ages of the parties? OPP.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Khula, if so, on what terms? OPP.
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to restitution of his conjugal rights? OPD.
(8) Relief.
2. Learned Judge Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, seized of the matter, on the basis for the evidence adduced by the parties, vide the impugned judgment dated 14-9-1986 decided issues 1 to 5 against the respondent, however, decreed the suit on ground of Khula, and, resultantly, dismissed the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, hence the present petition.
3. It is contended that the parties can live together as spouses, but for the irritant relationship of petitioner with the respondent's parents and brothers which does not furnish a ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula, specially when all the issues have been decided against the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
4. I have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, which comprises three witnesses on either side. The respondent appeared as P.W. 3 and testified that she is of 20 years of age while the petitioner is aged 65 years, that they lived together only for a short period of six months, whereafter, she had to abandon the matrimonial home on account of habitual cruel treatment having been meted out to her at the hands of the petitioner and for false charges of adultery, and, irretrievably ruled out the possibility of their living together as spouses within the limits of God, on which count she was corroborated by Muhammad Ashraf P.W.1 and Shera P.W.2; the former even deposed that petitioner levelled false allegation of the respondent having adulterous relationship with Saeed Butcher. Furthermore from the petitioners evidence, comprising his own testimony as D.W.3 and that of his witnesses Muhammad Nawaz D.W.1 and Muhammad Hayat D.W.2, it is revealed that the parties had entertained serious estrangement for the resolution whereof, number of reconciliation efforts were initiated but the same were frustrated.
5. Having considered the arguments of the parties in the light of the evidence, I. Am of the opinion that the respondent has developed irretrievable hatred for the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds of un-matching age, accusation of adultery (though the issue. As such has not been proved) and un-ambridgible gulf between the parties, manifested by the failure of multiple reconciliatory, efforts, ruling out the possibility of the parties living together as spouses within the limits prescribed by God; as a result whereof this petition fails, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.