' This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated December 30th of 1989 of Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was maintained.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent-plaintiff brought a suit for dissolution of her marriage on May 21st of 1986. It was stated in the suit that she was married with respondent about 10 years back before the filing of the suit. But her husband, the present appellant, subjected her to physical violence on several occasions. In 1979, the defendant-appellant gave in writing that in future he will not resort to physical violence. But after a week of this written assurance, she was turned out the house and her belongings and ornaments were also snatched by her busband. For more than seven years no maintenance has been provided to her and her husband the present appellant has not performed marital obligations for more than seven years. At the time of her marriage prompt dower of Rs,5,025 was fixed but her husband has not paid her dower despite repeated demands.
3. A cross-suit for restitution of conjugal rights was brought by the present appellant on March 4th of 1987 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Hattian. In that suit he had averred that at the time of his marriage with the respondent the prompt dower of Rs,5,025 was fixed and was paid as he gave ornaments to his wife in lieu of the dower amount.
4. Both these suits were vehemently contested by the parties who repudiated the averments of each other's suit through their written statements.
' Ultimately the trial Court framed as many as nine following issues.
(1) Whether plaintiff has got a cause of action? O.P.P.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got locus standi, to file the suit? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is not maintainable? O.P.D.
(4) Whether Rs,5025 was fixed as prompt dower which was not paid by the defendant till filing of the suit? O.P.P.
(5) Whether the defendant failed to perform marital obligations for more than seven years? O.P.P.
(6) Whether the defendant failed to maintain his wife for more than seven years? O.P.P.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for dissolution of her marriage on the basis of Khula?
O.F.P.
(8) If the above issues are not proved in affirmative, whether Ghulam Haider (rival plaintiff) is entitled to have a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
(9) Relief.
5. The trial Court found all the first eight issues in favour of plaintiff- respondent in consequence thereof the suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed in her favour vide judgment, dated May 31st of 1989 and the cross-suit for restitution of conjugal rights brought by the appellant-defendant was dismissed. This order of the learned Sub-Judge Hattian was assailed in appeal before the District Judge, Muzaffarabad who entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad for hearing and disposal. The learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant vide judgment, dated December 30th of 1989. This judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad is the subject of the present appeal.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant addressed his arguments only on issue No,8. It was maintained by him that it was proved on the file that the prompt dower was actually paid by the appellant at the time of his marriage with the respondent. It was further argued by him that the decree for dissolution of marriage on Khula, can only be allowed if on the ground of sufficient evidence, it is proved that the spouses cannot live within the limits of God. In this case, the respondent has to prove that she has developed an aversion for her husband, so much so that it was not possible for them to live within the limits of God.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent took me through the statements of some witnesses and also referred para 5 of the suit filed by the respondent wherein she has clearly averred that she will like to jump into the river rather than to accompany her husband. He referred PLD 1981 AJK 94; PLD 1969 SC 97; PLD 1959 Lah. 566 and PLD 1978 Lah. 1109, in support of his contention that when Court comes to this conclusion that due to the strained relations between the spouses, wife has developed an aversion to her husband so much so that it was not impossible for them to live within the limits of God, the Courts have allowed in such circumstances decree for dissolution of marriage on Khula. In my opinion, there is no dispute that when the Presiding Officer of competent Court comes to this conclusion that it is not possible for the spouses to live within the limits of God, he has jurisdiction to revoke the ties of marriage on Khula. For this view of the matter, there is no need to discuss the authorities which were referred by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
9. I have taken into consideration the suit filed by the respondent alongwith the evidence which was led by the parties for and against their respective claims.
10. The respondent-plaintiff has clearly shown her unwillingness to accompany her husband due to his past behaviour not only in the suit, but also in her statement which was recorded by the trial Court. Her witnesses have also supported her version. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any justification left for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, on this aspect of the matter. The only point which needs determination and has vehemently been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that in fact dower was paid to the respondent as such, the amount of dower was wrongly adjusted against the amount of Khula.
11. It was averred by the appellant in his suit, that Rs,5,025 was fixed as dower money but he gave ornaments to his wife in lieu of the said dower amount; whereas in evidence he and his witnesses, have proved the payment of dower money by way of a buffalo. It was admitted by the appellant in his Court statement that in lieu of dower, he gave a buffalo to the respondent-plaintiff. This version on the face of it, is against the stand which was taken by the appellant in his suit. A statement beyond the scope of pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. The Courts below have rightly decided issue No,8 in favour of respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. As no other ground was argued before this Court, as such evidence relating to other issues is not required to be discussed in this order.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with costs.