' Mst. Shaheenah, respondent No, 1 herein, was married to Abdul Kalam Azad petitioner on 26th December, 1986, against dower of Rs, 10,000. It appears that there was only one issue from the marriage who is unfortunately dead. Later on estrangement developed between the parties which led to the filing of suit for dissolution of marriage by respondent No, 1 against the petitioner, on various grounds inter alia cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, deprivation of articles of dowry and misappropriation. The petitioner apart from defending the suit also instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both suits were consolidated by the learned Judge Family Court, who framed 7 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties.
2. In support of her case, respondent No, 1 examined Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.1, Sultan. Ahmad P.W.2 and herself appeared as P.W.3. On the other hand, the petitioner produced Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq as D.W.1, Abdul Hakim as D.W.2 and his own statement was recorded as D.W.3.
3. On 25th July, 1989 the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed by the trial Court while that of the petitioner was dismissed. It was found by the Family Court that the petitioner has been treating the respondent No,1 with cruelty and had also failed to pay maintenance to her for the last 1-1/2 yeaRs, The other issues relating to misappropriation and deprivation of articles of dowry were also decided in favour of respondent No,1. As regards dower, it was observed that admittedly, it was fixed at Rs,10,000 and the stand of the petitioner that respondent No,1 had foregone the dower was not correct. This decree of the Family Court has been assailed by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition.
4. Ch. Nawab-ud-Din Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not allowed an adequate opportunity to defend the suit for dissolution of marriage inasmuch as the counsel for the petitioner had proceeded for Haj, but the learned Judge Family Court refused to wait for him.
5. On 11th June, 1989 when the case was fixed for evidence of respondent No,1, the witnesses of respondent No,1 were present, but the learned Judge with a view to accommodate the petitioner adjourned the case to 9th July, 1989 as his counsel had proceeded for Haj. It was observed that the suit being for dissolution of marriage, cannot be adjourned for a long date and the petitioner may engage another counsel. The next date of hearing fixed was 9th July, 1989 i,e, after almost a month.
Unfortunately, on the next date of hearing, again the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present but the petitioner himself cross-examined the witnesses. In the circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has not been allowed sufficient opportunity to defend is wholly devoid of any force.
6. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Family Court are not borne out by the evidence on record, as the weight of which is in favour of the petitioner and not respondent No,l. Apart from the fact that in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, it is not possible to reappraise evidence, it is to be noticed that the findings recorded by the trial Court are amply supported by the evidence on_ the record and call for no interference by this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. The next argument of the learned counsel was that as according to the finding of the Family Court itself, the non-maintenance was only for a period of 1-1/2 years, it could not be a ground for dissolution of marriage as according to section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, it is only when the non-maintenance has extended to a period of two years or more, that the marriage can be dissolved on this ground. This argument of the learned counsel is correct.
Kowever, it does not in any matter advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the marriage has been dissolved by the Family Court on the ground of cruelty as also deprivation and misappropriation of the articles of dowry as well.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition has no force and is dismissed, with costs.