MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.- Facts giving rise to this constitutional petition are that respondent No. 2, Mst.
Razia Khanum, who is a deaf and dumb lady, was married to the petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor. A son and a daughter were born out of their wedlock but the daughter has since expired. The son is, however, alive. After the birth of the said children, differences arose between the spouses and respondent No. 2, Mst. Razia Khanum, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, left her conjugal domicile. She then filed a suit, against the petitioner, for dissolution of marriage. The suit was decreed by a Family Court on the ground of Khula. Petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence this writ petition.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no good ground for dissolving the petitioner's marriage on the ground of Khula and, therefore, the orders of two Courts below called for interference by this Court.
3. The respondent examined Mst. Kanizan Bibi (P.W. 1), Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.2), and Sana Ullah (P.W.3) in support of her case. She did not herself go in the witness box, probably, for the reason that, as indicated above, she is, admittedly, a deaf and dumb lady and, therefore, she could neither hear nor make any statement. Mst. Kanizan Bibi is her mother. Abdul Ghafoor is a cousin of Mst.
Kanizan Bibi. Sana Ullah is special attorney of the respondent.
4. It can be clearly gathered from the evidence produced by the respondent that she belong to a well-to-do family while the petitioner was a poor person. In view of her affluence, therefore, the petitioner opted to contract marriage with her with a view to making use of her property notwithstanding the fact that she was physically handicapped. After producing two children, however, he though of having a change and contracted marriage with two other ladies, one after the other, but divorced them after some time. Admittedly, these marriages were contracted by him without the consent of the respondent.. According to the respondent's evidence the petitioner maltreated her and, therefore, she was obliged to leave his house. Evidence of respondent reveals that $he has developed, deep hatred for the petitioner and it is no longer possible for them to live amicably.
5. The petitioner produced Abdul Hameed (D. W.l) and Talib Hussain (D.W.2), and also himself entered the witness box as D.W.3, to rebut the evidence of the respondent, it was, however admitted by the petitioner and his witnesses that the petitioner had married twice after contracting marriage with the respondent, and that the respondent was not a consenting party to the said marriages. The petitioner's witness, Talib Hussain is hardly in apposition to make an authentic statement with regard to the mutual dealings of the parties because, according to his own admission, he generally lives in Karachi. D.W. 3 is the petitioner himself. So we are left with the evidence of Abdul Hameed (D. W.l) and the petitioner, but I feel that it is not as weighty as the evidence of the petitioner.
6. The admitted fact that the petitioner contracted two marriages, after entering into matrimonial alliance with the respondent, clearly indicates that the petitioner is no longer happy with the respondent, perhaps, for the reason that she is a deaf and dumb lady and that now he wants to have a partner who is not handicapped like the respondent. That he has divorced his other two wives also shows that he has little regard for a matrimonial tie. Contracting marriage with a lady and then divorcing her appears to be a fun with him although according to the teachings of Islam divorce is to be avoided as far as possible. I feel that the petitioner has been dealing with wives as if they were chattel which could be parted with at will. In this state of affairs it would be unfair, if not cruel, to oblige the respondent, who is a disabled lady, to remain wedded to the petitioner. The respondent and her mother are fully aware of her (respondent's) physical drawbacks and they would not have decided to part with the petitioner unless it was absolutely unavoidable. The respondent being a handicapped lady, with a son to be looked after by her, is not likely to save an other husband of respectable status for years, if not for ever. Despite all this, she does not want to remain tied up with the petitioner as his were. This attitude on her part speaks volumes for her immense hatred for the petitioner although she is herself unable to speak.
7. Keeping all the aforementioned factors in view, I am in perfect agreement with the learned Courts below that it is no longer possible for the parties to live together as husband and were within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah and,, therefore, the respondent's marriage with the petitioner deserved to be dissolved on the ground of Khula.
8. Resultantly, this writ petition fails. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.