Heard.
2. By means of judgment and decree, dated 21-1-1997, passed by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Zahid, Civil Judge 1st Class/Judge, Family Court, Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan, suit for "dissolution of marriage" was decreed in favour of respondent No.2 and against the petitioner, who, has assailed validity thereof in this petition under Article 1.99 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
3. Matters in controversy, arising out of divergent pleadings of the parties, were reduced and converted into following issues:----------
(1) Whether the defendant has not performed his marital obligation towards the plaintiff from inception of the marriage? O.P.P.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has developed profound hatred and aversion towards the defendant and as such, the plaintiff cannot live with him within the limits prescribed by God Almighty? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get divorce from the defendant as prayed for? O.P.P.
(4) Relief.
4. After recording evidence, wished to be adduced by both the parties and of course affording due chance of being heard to them, suit was decreed as indicated and noted above.
5. Much stress has been laid upon the aspects that the petitioner could not be penalized and debarred from producing evidence; personal appearance is not necessary and representation through attorney or Advocate is sufficient; provisions of reconciliatory proceedings, undoubtedly couched in mandatory form, stand offended and inferences drawn and gathered by learned Judge, Family Court are neither warranted by solitary statement of girl, nor relations of spouses could be taken to have reached the point of "no return" so as to extend plea of-Khula' to it. Reliance has been placed on Abdul Majid v. Mukhtar Begum and Judge, Family Court, Liaquatpur PLD 1979 Note 50 at p.34 and Muhammad Ishaque v. Ch. Ahsan Ahmad, Judge, Family Court, Lyallpur PLD 1975 Lah. 1118 in support of contentions.
6. Conversely impugned judgment and decree have been acclaimed to be correct in all respects.
7. A close perusal of documents annexed with the petition, however, reveals that last adjournment on 20-1-1997 was at the instance of the petitioner. As such relevant provisions could aptly come into play and pressed into service. Matter, accordingly, is cut down to a limited proposition if invocation thereof was justified in the circumstances of the case. Answer to the same is certainly in the affirmative inasmuch as carelessness and lethargy on the part of petitioner in producing evidence seems to be so viewed that it did not admit of any further concession to him. Needless to observe that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. Seemingly learned Judge, Family Court, seized of the matter, had been left with no alternative and option but to decline further opportunity and to resort to penal provisions.
8. As P. W.1 respondent No. 3, unequivocally, expressed not only hatred and fixed aversion but also testified that she would prefer to die rather than to live with petitioner as his were. In face of such data no other conclusion than that arrived at by learned Judge, Family Court could be inferred.
9. Omission, if any, to resort to conciliation proceedings as envisaged by Family Courts Act, is, at the best, an irregularity and technically, has no adverse effect upon outcome of suit and does not warrant and justify interference in Family Court's decision in limited jurisdiction. I am fortified in this belief by illuminating observations contained in Muhammad Sadiq Hussain v. Mst. Khurshid Fatima and another 1978 SCM R 130 and Bharoo v. Civil Judge/Family Judge and another 1985 CLC 806.
10. Neither any other aspect has been pointed out nor highlighted to show or assert that the judgment and decree, sought to be impeached and set at naught, suffer from misreading of evidence as also non-consideration of vital material on record, which, may have the effect of rendering it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and significance. In short not a single word or error liable to be corrected through judicial review, has been hinted at. Rather findings of fact recorded by Family Court embracing and encompassing all aspects, are neither exceptionable nor challengeable before this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction as expounded in Muhammad Yaseen v. Mst. Raza Begum and others 1986 CLC 1996 and Muhammad Aslam v.
Kausar Parveen 1987 CLC 256, plethora of authorities and galaxy of rulings on the point.
11. Hence viewed from any angle, instant petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed in limine.