' Mst. Maqsood Bibi filed a suit for the dissolution of marriage against Riaz Ahmad on various grounds including Khula. The suit was resisted, whereon six issues were framed. The parties led their evidence.
2. Mst. Maqsood appeared as P.W.1 She produced Imam Bakhsh P.W.2 and Ghulam Qadir P.W.3. To rebut this evidence Riaz Hussain produced Bashir Ahmad D.W.2, Allah Bakhsh, D.W.3 and himself appeared as D.W.1. While deciding the issues other than issue of Khula against the respondent/plaintiff the trial Court decreed the suit for the dissolution of marriage on the basis of its finding on issue of Khula.
3. Through this Constitutional petition, Riaz Ahmad seeks declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1991 passed by the Judge Family Court, Khan Pur is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having found all other issues against the respondent/plaintiff there was hardly any justification to decree the suit on the basis of Khula; and that the learned Judge Family Court has not considered the question of the benefits derived by the respondent/plaintiff.
4-A. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel pursuaded to agree with him. I find that in exercise of this Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution of Republic of Pakistan 1973, this Court will interfere when it feels that the Judge Family Court had flouted the provisions of relevant law or he had disregarded the guidelines given by the superior Courts. The question of Khula was/is more or less a question of fact. After applying his conscious mind to the relevant facts, the learned Judge Family Court has come to the conclusion that:- "the plaintiff has developed hatred against the defendant to great height. In these circumstances, the separation of the spouses is inevitable, for it is better to live separately than to live in a hateful union."
I do not see any valid reason to disagree with him. As far the question of benefit, I find that the Nikanama has not been produced to show the benefit which the plaintiff had derived at the time of her marriage with the petitioner. The amounts spent by the petitioner or paid by the petitioner to his wife after marriage cannot be termed/held as benefits derived by her as consideration after her marriage: This being the position, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and decree.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine.