In this Constitutional petition a finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that they were not satisfied that the petitioner had brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that she was entitled to a decree for dissolution of her marriage on the basis of `Khula, has been brought under challenge.
2. The petitioner filed suit for dissolution of marriage on various grounds including the ground that the treatment of the respondent No. 1 with her was cruel. She also alleged that she had developed hatred against respondent No. 1, therefore, was entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of `Khula.
3. When she appeared as her own witness, she did not state about any incident regarding cruelty on the part of the respondent to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court to hold an opinion that the parties had gone to the extent where harmonious re-union as ordained by Almighty God was not possible. She even did not state that there was any hatred against the respondent except that it was not possible for her to live with respondent as his wife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment reported as Nazir Begum v. Muhammad Aslam etc. (NLR 1988 Civil Page 412) to argue that this much statement by the wife was sufficient to dissolve the marriage on the ground of `Khula". On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No-1 placed reliance on judgment reported as Tahira Tabassum v. Addl. District Judge etc. (1991 M LD 759) in which it has been held that judicial conscious of the Court must be satisfied by the wife that circumstances were such that they could not live as husband and wife and a vague expression used in the statement of the wife would not entitle her to a decree for dissolution of marriage.
5. in my opinion, every case is to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances as no hard and fast rule can be laid down. In this case both the Courts below have not been satisfied that any circumstance was existing justifying dissolution of marriage on the ground of `Khula". The appellant has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction in which the concurrent findings of both the Courts below could not be substituted, by a finding by this Court unless it was shown that evidence was misread, misconstrued or there was failure on the part of the Court to exercise jurisdiction vested in them under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the two Courts below suffers from any illegality or jurisdictional defect. .
6. When questioned both the parties admitted that the father of the petitioner has died and she has inherited land and other property from her father. The mother of the petitioner has contracted second marriage. It appears that the step-father is interested in the property of the petitioner and it was at his instance that the suit for dissolution of marriage was got filed and the petitioner was acting according to his wishes.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the respondent has obtained permission from the Union Council to contact second marriage. A copy of order dated 12-7-1990 passed by the Union Council to this effect has been placed on the record. Respondent when asked submitted that he made an application to the Chairman to bring about settlement between him and the petitioner because he wanted that she should live with him as wife for which he also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights which has been decreed. He says that respondent was not allowed to appear before the Chairman by his step-father, therefore, the Chairman instead passed an order permitting him to contact second marriage. He says that he has no intention to contact second marriage but wants that the petitioner should live with him as his wife and in case he is compelled to contract second marriage he undertakes to divorce the petitioner before that.
8. No case has been made out for interference in the judgments passed by the two Courts below.
The writ petition fails which is accordingly dismissedwith no order as to costs.