' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner on the basis of cruelty; bad character of petitioner No,1, misappropriation of property and Khula. The suit was contested by the petitioner but was decreed by the Family Court on the ground of Khula alone. This decree of the Family Court dated Ist of March, 1988 has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this petition.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while granting Khula to respondent No,1, the Family Court has acted illegally in not determining the benefits which she was liable to restore in lieu of Khula. It was contended that the Family Court has erred in observing that no plea regarding the restoration of benefits had been raised in the written statement.
3. While deciding issue No,5 which pertains to the question of Zar-e-Khula, it was observed by the Family Court that though the petitioner while appearing as DW.1 had stated that the plaintiff/respondent No,1 had taken away 5-1/2 tolas of golden ornaments and Rs,2,000 but no such allegation was made in the written statement. This observation of the Family Court is supported by the record. A perusal of the written statement shows that though the petitioner had asserted that no dowry was given by the parents of respondent No,1 to her but it was never alleged that at the time when she left his house she took away any golden ornaments or the amount of Rs,2,000. In the absence of any such plea in the written statement, the Family Court was justified in not relying upon the evidence led by the plaintiff.
4. Be that as it may, it is by now well-settled that the decision of the Family.Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula can be subjected to appeal under section 14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
Reference in this connection may be A made to Mst. Rushda Zareen v. Muhammad Saleh (PLD 1976 Lahore 1327) and Muhammad Shafi v. District Judge, Gujrat and another (1982 CLC 2057). As the petitioner has failed to avail of this remedy, the present petition is clearly not competent.
' As a result of the above this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.