' Mst. Musarat Nazir, respondent No,2, instituted a suit for dissolution of her marriage against the petitioner Dilshad before the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat on number of grounds including Khula. The petitioner Dilshad also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No,2. Both the suits were consolidated for their trial together. The petitioner contested the suit for dissolution of marriage by filing written statement. The learned Judge Family Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit of respondent No,2 on 7-7-1982 on the basis of Khula and thereby dissolved the marriage. Vires of the said judgment and decree have been questioned by means of this petition by the petitioner.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the basis of Khula. It is argued that the learned trial Court did not determine the disputed benefits for their return to the petitioner by respondent No,2 while dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula. According to the learned counsel, it was mandatory that the benefits should have been determined by the learned trial Court according to law. The learned Law Officer has opposed the petition tooth and nail. He submits that findings of fact have been arrived at by the competent Court and that there is no law point involved in the petition. Reliance has been placed by the learned Law Officer on the rule laid down in Akhlaq Ahmad v. Kishwar Sultana (PLD 1983 SC 169). The contention that the said benefits have not been determined for return to the petitioner by respondent No,2 has no force. It cannot be said that the petitioner has no remedy at law. It is well-settled that where there is a right, there is a remedy to get it according to law. It is a civil liability as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the precedent case. The petitioner, therefore, can move the civil Court for recovery of the benefits, if any, according to law. Learned counsel has failed to point out any legal flaw much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment which is based on evidence and has been passed by respondent No,1 with lawful authority. As observed above, the question pertaining to benefits given by the petitioner to respondent No,2 when the marriage took place, is a question which primarily relates to a civil liability between the parties. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the Constitutional petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.