1. NAIMUDDIN, J.---This is an almost 13 years old appeal in which leave was granted on 29-11-1977.
2. The brief facts are that the parties were married on 14-4-1968. The respondent filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Judge, Family Court, Lahore on 10-7-1973. The material issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties was whether the appellant's conduct with the respondent has been habitually cruel. The learned Family Court decided the issue against the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondent on 28-4-1975, dissolving the marriage of the parties. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who held that as the subject-matter of the substantial issue arising in the case was of a factual nature, the finding thereon could not be disturbed in Writ jurisdiction. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and the learned Judges came to the conclusion that there is "no defect in the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court so as to hold the same as to be without lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution" and dismissed the appeal with costs on 28-10-1976.
3. Appellant was granted leave to consider the question mentioned in the leave granting order.
4. We have heard the appellant for one hour and fifteen minutes. After hearing him we were of the view that the appeal has no merits. But, when we expressed this view in open Court, he sought permission to withdraw the appeal, if remarks made by the learned Family Judge as to the mental state of his mind, namely, "under a hysterical fit" used in the sentence"then, under a hysterical fit, started beating her with a shoe and tore the divorce deed, after snatching it from her" in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Family Court dated 28-4-1975 and similar words, if any, used in the order of the High Court, are expunged, keeping the finding on the following issue "whether the defendant's" (appellant's) conduct with the plaintiff (respondent) has been habitually cruel" intact and also other findings on other issues and maintaining the decree of the dissolution of marriage between the parties.
5. We see no harm if the words objected to are expunged.
6. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, expunging the aforesaid words. The respondent is not represented before us, we therefore, do not award any costs.