1. ' Respondent No,1 Mst. Bashiran was given in marriage to Muhammad Sadiq petitioner about fifteen years ago. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner inter alia on the ground of Khula`. The petitioner also instituted a suit praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. Both these suits were tried together and the Family Court after framing as many as fifteen issues recorded evidence of the parties. On 19th September, 1988 the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed while that of dissolution of marriage was dismissed by the learned Family Court.
3. Aggrieved by this judgment, respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 13th of September, 1989 on the ground that the respondent No,1 was entitled to Khula. As a result of this finding the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the respondent No,1 was granted a decree for dissolution of marriage.
2. Mr. Nusrat Javed Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that while granting Khula to respondent No,1 it was incumbent upon the lower Appellate Court to have determined Zar- e-Khula and in the absence of any such determination, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge is not sustainable. Although in the written statement filed by the petitioner he has categorically asserted that respondent No,1, has taken away some golden ornaments and a sum of Rs,2,000 but there was no demand by him either in the written statement or in his statement as D.W.1 for restoration of these benefits. In these circumstances the Additional District Judge, was correct in observing, that no benefits are to be restored by respondent No,1 (See Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala District Vehari and another (I' L D 1989 Lah. 31).
4. ' In this view of the matter, the present petition cannot succeed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.