1. ' The petitioner has, through this Constitutional petition, assailed the judgment dated 14-6-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent No,1 against the judgment of the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat dated 1-3-1990 and decreed her suit for dissolution of marriage.
2. ' The facts, necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 entered into a marriage contract on the 23rd of December, 1988. The relation between the parties became strained and consequently respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of habitual cruelty, illicit relaitons with other women and petitioner's bad character and plea of Khula was also raised. The petitioner resisted the claim and the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether this suit has been filed as counter blast? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is hit by Section 11, C.P.C.? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendant has illicit relaitons with women of ill repute? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Khula`, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP,
(5) Relief.
3. ' The learned Judge Family Court vide his order dated 1-3-1990 declined to grant decree mainly on the ground in the words of the learned Judge Family Court that "respondent No,1 only inhabited for about 2/3 months with the petitioner and in these circumstances it cannot be said that she during this short period of Abadi' developed such an intense hatred against the petitioner that she cannot now live with him within the limits ordained by Almighty Allah."
4. ' The respondent No,1 filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat accepted the appeal and dissolved the marriage on the basis of Khula subject to payment of Rs,5000 as Zar-e- Khula.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No,1 has failed to establish the alleged association of the petitioner with the women of ill-repute. This being so there was no basis left for the grant of dissolution on the ground of Khula. He has further stated that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was ex parte decreed in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 15- 5-1989. But the respondent No,1 deliberately and intentionally, without any valid reason, declined to reside with the petitioner which factum compelled him to contract a second marriage which otherwise is permissible under the Islamic Law. Respondent No,3 has not appreciated these aspects, it is argued.
6. ' I have considered the contentions. Learned Additional District Judge while reversing the findings of the learned Judge Family Court had gone deeper in the appreciation of evidence. It is established on record through the evidence produced by the respondent No,1 that the petitioner on the very first night stated to the respondent No,1 that he was in love with another woman namely Mst.
7. Surraya and he would marry her. This factum stands substantiated by the subsequent happening as the petitioner had admitted that he had contracted second marriage with Mst. Surraya just after eight months of his marriage. Argument of the learned counsel that the parties had not lived together for long and as such the question of development of hatred within this short period does not arise is devoid of any force. No time limit can be set for development of hatred in the matrimonial life. The right of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is an independent right and the failure of the petitioner to establish the grounds other than Khula taken by her shall not prejudice her right. Family Courts are enjoined to determine this right independently. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Suleman v. Asima Bibi 1983 CLC 2400.
8. ' It has been held in Mst. Rashidan Bibi v. Bashir Ahmed PLD 1983 Lah 549 that:-- "The principle of Khula is based on the fact that if a woman has decided not to live with her husband for any reason and this decision is firm then the Court after satisfying its conscience that not to dissolve the marriage would mean forcing the woman to a hateful union with the man, and it is not necessary on the part of the woman to produce evidence of facts and circumstances to show the extent of hatred to satisfy the conscience of the Judge Family Court or the Appellate Court."
9. ' The aforesaid view' taken by a learned Judge has been approved by the Supreme Court in case titled Abdur Rahim v. Mst. Shahida Khan (PLD 1984 SC 329). This being the position no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat in dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed in lirnine.