' This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition in hand, namely, Writ Petition No,8820 of 1991, Aftab Ahmed v. Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and others, as well as Writ Petition No,8822 of 1991, Aftab Ahmed v.
Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and others.
2. Facts giving rise to these writ petitions arc that respondent No,1 Mst. Tahira Yasmeen, hereinafter referred to as respondent, was married to Aftab Ahmed, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner.
Subsequently differences arose between the spouses and the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage. On the other hand, the petitioner brought a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, which was seized of the suits, decreed the suit of the petitioner but dismissed the suit of the respondent. She, therefore, went in appeal before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge accepted her appeals, in both the cases, and decreed her suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula` and dismissed the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the Constitutional petition referred to above.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were no sufficient grounds for dissolving the respondent's marriage on the ground of Khula' and, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned appellate Court were without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. I have examined the evidence of the parties and find that in her statement as P.W.1 it was stated by the respondent (Mst. Tahira Yasmeen) that at the time of marriage it was misrepresented by the petitioner that he was an Engineer but it was subsequently learnt that he had been educated up to middle standard only. It was further deposed by her that on the occasion of marriage she was told that he was Rajput by caste, but thereafter it transpired that he was a blacksmith. She belonges to an agriculturist family. Another allegation levelled by her was that he was addicted to alcohol and was involved in smuggling activities. According to her, he had also illicit relations with other women. The respondent deposed that whatever articles were given to her, at the time of marriage, had been returned by her to the petitioner. It was added by the respondent that the petitioner held out threats to her. Her statement stands supported by the depositions of Shahbaz Ali (P.W.2) and Muhammad Asghar (P.W.3). In rebuttal, the petitioner produced Ghulam Muhammad (D.W.1), Dr. Ahmed Hassan (D.W.2) and Zahid Hussain (D.W.3). He also himself went into the witness-box as D.W.4. It is, however, evident from the petitioner's own evidence that it is not possible for the spouses to live amicably. This is what was stated by Ghulam Muhammad (D.W.1) who is father of the petitioner. It was clearly deposed by him that it was wrong that the parties could live together. Precise words of his statement, in Urdu, read as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}}.y ' Similar statement was made by Dr. Ahmed Hassan (D.W.2) who too appeared as a witness of the petitioner. He said that now the respondent has developed great hatred for the petitioner. Relevant portion of his statement, in Urdu, makes the following reading:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' In his statement as D.W.4, it was said by the petitioner that he was prepared to live with respondent at all costs but he did not say that the respondent did not hate him or that it was possible for them to live nicely within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah.
5. From the evidence of the respondent it can be clearly gathered that the respondent is fed up with the petitioner due to misrepresentations made, by the respondent and other nefarious activities indulged in by him and, therefore, she wants to say good-bye to him. In other words, the respondent has developed strong dislikcncss for the petitioner and it is not possible for them to live peacefully as husband and wife. This is also discernible from the evidence of the petitioner himself, which has been referred to above. It is not even the plea of the petitioner that they can live together within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. In the circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in decreeing the respondent's suit for dissolution of marriage and dismissing the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
6. Since the judgments and decrees assailed in the aforementioned two writ petitions are not open to any legitimate exception, both the writ petitions, referred to at the outset are dismissed in limine.