' MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, J.---The I.C.A. Is directed against an order dated 27-10-1992, passed by a learned Judge in Chambers, dismissing in limine a writ petition, filed by Khalil Ahmad, whose suit for restitution of conjugal rights had been dismissed and against whom his wife Allah Rakhi's suit for dissolution of marriage had been decreed on 29-7-1992 by a learned Judge, Family Court, Multan, Mr. Munsaf Khan Minhas.
2. It is urged that the learned Single Judge has not applied his mind and taken into account all the submissions of the appellant, whose failure to make a statement as his own witness in trial has rather been magnified in a manner so as to discredit even rest of his evidence on record, giving undue weight, at the same time, to a wholly discrepant and incredible evidence led by the lady, whose witnesses, Muhammad Suleman P.W.1 and Haji Muhammad Jamil P.W.2, are admittedly her near relatives, being her uncles.
3. Although in writ petition, and especially in I.C.A. Appraisal or evaluation of evidence usually is not made, for this is an exercise which is A essentially to be undertaken by the Trial Court, it may still passingly be remarked that even the two witnesses of the appellant, Nabi Bakhsh D.W.1 and Muhammad Saleem D.W.2, have friendly relations with him and are on visiting terms with his Family, according to their own showing, and they may be termed as interested witnesses. But, in a case of this nature, close family members can best depose as to how have the spouses been pulling on, what are their . Temperaments, in what manner have they been behaving, and who is visibly or knowingly at fault for the discord or the differences. Muhammad Suleman P.W.1, besides being real paternal-uncle of Allah Rakhi, is also her next door neighbour.
4. Haji Muhammad Jan-ill P.W.2, who claims to have relationship with both the matrimonial partners, and is maternal-uncle of Khalid Ahmad appellant (though not real), supported by Muhammad Suleman P.W.1, paternal-uncle of Allah Rakhi (plaintiff-respondent) have deposed, in quite convincing manner, endorsing an odd but a sinister allegation of Allah Rakhi, P.W. 3, the same being that her husband's mother and sisters are women of evil repute and they were keen that Allah Rakhi also should follow their footsteps, and on her resistance she used to be subjected to ill- treatment and even physical beatings by Allah Rakhi's husband, Khalil Ahmad, who has also remarried and has even been blessed with a daughter from his second wife, Bano by name. She states to have developed profound and irreversible hatred against her husband. The marriage was performed on 30-10-1987; and about 13-1/2 months thereafter Allah Rakhi sued her husband for dissolution of marriage; and she in turn was sued for relief of restitution of conjugal rights by the latter, very shortly thereafter. Khalil's witnesses made their statements on 30-3-1992; and even according to them the separation had taken place 3-1/2 years there-before and the spouses had lived together for hardly a year. In family matters it is enjoined upon the Qazi to have a deep look into the circumstances precipitating bitterness and rift between wife and husband, in order to know if the same have come to a brink, from where retracing of steps has become pretty difficult, indeed impossible. It has essentially to be seen, if the wife, whose resentment assertedly knows no bounds, keeping in view her sentiments of disgust, will at all be able to abridge the rupture in relations and overcome the dismal situation. If it has become well nigh impossible for the spouses to make a happy home, it would evidently be better to snap such a marital tie, rather than forcing the spouses into a hateful reunion. It appears that in the instant case the learned Judge Family Court has made an objective assessment of the prevailing state of affairs. He is also not incorrect in giving importance to omission of appellant's own statement, which he should have been keen to make, as a party to the proceedings, and which he neglected to do, despite having availed of a reasonable opportunity.
5. The learned Judge in Chambers gave due consideration to this neglect or omission on the part of the husband, without whose testimony, depositions E of his witnesses were treated as worth little reliance. Appreciation of the evidence, as made by the learned trial Judge, has been endorsed by the learned Single Judge, and we find hardly any ground, even on facts, to differ with the same. On our own, we have also made a little bit of scrutiny of the evidentiary material on record; and we find ourselves wholly persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge Family Court, which has been upheld by the learned Judge in Chambers. The I.CA. Has no merit and is hereby dismissed.