' Marriage between the parties took place in the year 1995. Soon thereafter on account of disharmony and disliking a suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by respondent No,1 on various allegations including the one of Khula'. The petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated and tried by the learned Judge, Family Court together. Vide judgment, dated 15-5-1998 he dismissed the suit filed by respondent No,1 regarding dissolution of marriage. However, he decreed the suit filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights.
Respondent No,1 thereafter, filed an appeal before the appellate Court which appeal succeeded and the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court and decreed her suit regarding dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula' on 23-7-1998.
This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that since there was no assertion in the statement of respondent No,1 as to any disliking, disharmony or specific claim for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula', therefore, finding recorded by the learned Judge Family Court was perfectly in accordance with law. He contends that the learned Appellate Court has erred in law in setting aside the judgment of the learned Family Court. He relied on PLD 1986 Quetta 185; 1998 CLC 1711 in support of his contentions.
3. Pre-admission notice was issued by this Court to respondent No,1 in order to explore the possibility of some reconciliation between the parties. Notice was issued by the office for appearance of respondent No,1, but despite service of the notice, she has chosen not to appear.
4. In the suit filed by respondent, she had asserted that it was not possible for her to live with the petitioner as his wife within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. However, when she appeared as witness as P.W.1, she did not state so in so many words but stated that she cannot live with the petitioner. Non-assertion in her statement as a witness was the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court that Khula' cannot be granted to respondent No, 1 .
5. Before the appellate Court in paragraph III of her grounds of appeal she specifically asserted that she had developed so much hatred and disliking for the petitioner that it was not possible for her to live with him as his wife. It was not all. She further stated that she would rather commit suicide. The learned appellate Court before whom it was the first appeal and the entire matter reopened and became sub judice before him in view of material on record including her assertion in the grounds of appeal, came to the conclusion that it was not possible to keep the marital bond alive between the parties on account of her clear assertion that she was not ready to live with the petitioner as his wife.
' These are matters of special nature and are to be decided by having an overall view of the matter and not relying on technicalities of procedure as are some times applied by the Civil Courts in trying normal civil suits. No strict rules of evidence or pleadings are to be applied rather the conscious of the Court is to be satisfied as to whether the marital relation between the parties is to be maintained.
6.The other factor which cannot he ignored is that both the parties are closely related. They are cousins and neighbour but still despite that, all efforts on behalf of the petitioner for reconciliation have failed. Respondent No,1 seems to have made up her mind that she could not live with the petitioner at any cost as his wife . This also is indicative of her. Intention. Her nonappearance before this Court in pursuance of pre-admission notice further strengthens this aspect of the matter. What else would have been expected from a woman to express that she had developed a hatred and disliking for claiming dissolution of marriage on be ground of Ithula'.
5. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel proceeded on their own peculiar facts. The principle deducible therefrom rather supports the stand of respondent No,1, inasmuch as in those cases no conscious effort was made for reconciliation between the parties whereas in this case in view of close relationship between the parties, being cousins, the family made efforts for reconciliation which failed. All these factors taken together in totality would establish on record the disliking which had developed to such an extent that it was not possible for the wife to continue as such with the petitioner. Not only in the plaint but also in the grounds of appeal she had stated in un-equivocal terms that it was not possible for her to live as wife of the petitioner and rather went to the extent that otherwise she would commit suicide.
' In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.