This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by Mst. Iffat Nasreen respondent No.l against the Petitioner which was decreed by the Family Court on 2-3-1989 on the ground that the Petitioner had misappropriated the articles of dowry; that he had failed to providemaintenance for period of more than two years and lastly Khula.
2. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition is that the suit on behalf of respondent No.l had not been filed not by a duly authorised person. It has been explained that suit was instituted by respondent No.l through her father, Syed Fayaz Hussain Shah who purported to be her attorney but power of attorney in his favour did not authorise him to file a suit for dissolution of marriage.
3. There appears to be no merit in this contention. The power of attorney referred to by the learned counsel shows that the attorney, who is the father of the respondent No.l, was authorised to take all actions including filing of the suit.
4. Be that as it may, even if there is some force in this technical objection raised by the learned counsel, the discretion vesting in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. It is not the case that the suit was filed by the father of respondent No.l without her consent or against her wishes. Admittedly, marriage between the parties took place in 1983 and they are living separately since 1987. Both the petitioner and respondent No.l are residing abroad in different countries. There appears to be no possibility of parties living together as husband and wife.
5. It needs also be stated that this petition was dismissed for no prosecution on 24th February, 1991 and was restored on 30th May, 1992. The father and attorney of respondent No .l filed his affidavit in Which he has deposed that after the dismissal of the constitutional petition for no prosecution, respondent No .l had remarried Muhammad Nasir and is living with him in Germany as his wife. It is further stated that out of this wedlock, there is a child also. That being so, it would be highly inequitable to set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage passed in favour of respondent No .l against the petitioner on 2nd March, 1989.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.