JUDGMENT JUDGMENT MIAN SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J. --- The petitioner instituted a suit for dissolution of her marriage against respondent No. 3 inter alia on the ground of Khula. The suit was resisted and out of the controverted pleadings of the parties, certain issues were framed. Learned Judge Family Court after recording the evidence granted the decree as prayed for subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 26,500/- as consideration of Khula divorce.
Feeling aggrieved to the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge on 1.6.1994. Hence this writ petition.
2. It is contended that there was no evidence on record to justify issuance of direction to the petitioner to pay the above noted amount as consideration of Khula. According to the learned counsel respondent No. 3 could not prove that he had conferred some benefits upon the petitioner at the time of marriage and he was entitled to return thereof in consequence of the dissolution of the matrimonial ties.
3. I am afraid, there is no force in this writ petition. Concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by two Courts of competent jurisdiction that respondent No. Had spent a sum of Rs. 26500/- for purchase of a house for the petitioner at the time of marriage and that she was liable to return this amount as consideration for Khula.
Learned counsel tried to criticise the finding of fact referred to above by reading certain portions from the evidence of the witnesses. Re-appraisal of the evidence cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Merely because another view of the evidence could be possible, per se, provided no justification for substituting the same for that concurrently arrived by learned Judge Family Court as well as learned Addl. District Judge.
No mis-reading/non-reading could be pointed out justifying interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.