' Facts culminated into this appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of learned Judge Family Court, Kotli on 24-12-1994 are that appellant Mst. Amana Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against respondent in the Court of Judge Family Court on 18-8-1994. The dissolution of marriage was sought on the ground of maltreatment, for non-payment of maintenance allowance, having been levelled the allegations of immorality and disparity of social status. The appellant also pleaded her marriage to be dissolved on the basis of Khula' as an alternate plea. The respondent resisted the suit and filed a cross-suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 1-10-1994. The trial Court consolidated both the suits and after completion of due process of law, dismissed the suit of the appellant while the cross-suit of the respondent was decreed. It is the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court, Kotli correctness and legality of which has now been challenged through this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court fell in error while dismissing the suit of the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the case for dissolution of marriage was made out through the evidence on record but the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospective. The appellant had developed hatred against the respondent and they could not live within the limits ordained by Almighty Allah, the learned counsel contended. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that keeping in view the settled principles regarding dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulah, it was obligatory for the trial Court to dissolve the marriage as it would be nothing but a hateful union. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree argued that all the issues were decided against the appellant. The appellant failed to prove maltreatment, non-payment of maintenance allowance, allegations of immorality and disparity of social status between spouses, the learned counsel submitted.
3. According to the learned counsel, there was no justification to dissolve the marriage and the Court below committed no illegality while passing the impugned judgment.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and have examined the record with care.
5. The parties admittedly were married on 4-4-1993 whereas the suit for dissolution was filed on 18- 4-1994. The parties produced evidence to prove their respective claims. The appellant produced Mr. Muhammad Anwar and Alam Din as her witnesses and appeared herself as witness in the Court. The respondent besides his own appearance in the Court as witness also produced Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Siddique as his witnesses. The appellant failed to prove the allegations made in the plaint. The trial Court framed as many as six issues. All the issues except Issue No,6 were decided against the appellant as it was for the appellant to discharge the burden placed on her. The respondent succeeded to prove the Issue No,6, and thus, his suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that irrespective of the fact that the appellant failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against her husband yet the fact remains that she (appellant) had developed hatred against him (respondent) and by not dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khulah, the Court below has forced them to lead their life in a hateful union. The learned counsel referred 1983 CLC 2400, PLD 1983 Lah. 549, PLD 1984 SC 329 and 1984 SCMR 523 in support of his version to dissolve the marriage between the spouses on the basis of Khulah. After having gone through the above-referred authorities. I felt it proper to examine the evidence brought on record by the appellant especially the statement of the appellant made on oath in the Court. The principles laid down in the abovementioned authorities for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulah are correct. I have no quarrel with the principles laid down in the aforesaid authorities but after having examined all the case-law pertaining to Khulah, one thing which comes out is that the wife who seeks dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulah must show the reasons on account of which she claims Khulah. The wife is to satisfy the conscience of the Court that there exists genuine cause for separation on the basis of Khulah. In absence of compelling reasons for dissolution, it does not lie in the mouth of a woman to come forward and say that the marriage be dissolved on the basis of Khulah merely because she chooses to do so.
The most famous case of Sabit and Jamila which made a basis for different judgments of the superior Courts in recent past was also examined. In that case also reasons for Khulah were given Sabit was an ugly man whereas Jamila was a handsome woman. She could not bear him, and thus, the marriage was dissolved by Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
6. In the instant case, the appellant levelled the allegations of cruelty, non-payment of maintenance and immorality in the plaint but while appearing as witness in the Court did not corroborate the same. She even did not utter a single word as to why she has developed hatred against her husband. Neither she spoke of the allegations of immorality or disparity of social status.
According to her statement, the respondent belongs to a rich family having good health. There is nothing on record to suggest any fault whatsoever in the person of the respondent. On the other hand it is also on record that the respondent made repeated attempts to take her back to his home but the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant were behind the curtain to destroy the life of the spouses. The perusal of the statement of the appellant also shows that she is not a truthful lady because she contradicts her own witnesses. Mr. Alam Din and Muhammad Anwar deposed in the Court that they were not present during the wedlock of the spouses but the appellant stated otherwise to show their presence during marriage ceremony.
7. Khulah is possible either the spouses agreed to it or the Court after its satisfaction orders the dissolution of marriage. The evidence in the instant case is not of such a nature which suggests the dissolution on the basis of Khulah. Another aspect of the case is that the Trial Court on an objective appraisal of the evidence on the issue framed, recorded a finding against the appellant with regard to question of Khulah, such a conclusion being in domain of discretion exercise by an authority having the advantage of observing closely and over along period of proceedings before it the behaviour and the conduct of the parties towards each other and their problems is not open to interference unless the discretion was manifestly exercised arbitrarily and capriciously.
With the above observation the appeal merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.