' This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20-10-1998 passed by Judge, Family Court, Rajanpur whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit of dissolution of marriage filed by the plaintiff/respondent No,2/Mst. Nasreen.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 22-1-1997 plaintiff/respondent No,2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the defendant/petitioner inter alia seeking the invoice on the ground of Khula'.
The defendant/petitioner resisted the suit and filed written statement on 26-3-1997 wherein he controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff/respondent No,2 and also raised two preliminary objections to the effect that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as well as plaintiff/respondent No,2 had no cause of action to file the same.
3. As a result of divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the defendant bears immoral character? O. P.P.
(2) Whether the defendant forced the plaintiff immoral life? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the defendant put the plaintiff to cruelty? 0.P.P.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Khula'? If so, on what terms and conditions? O.P.P.
(5) Relief.
4. In support of her stand plaintiff/respondent No,2 examined herself as P.W.1 and brought on record statement of Nazar Hussain as P.W.2. In rebuttal the defendant/petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and thereafter, closed his evidence.
5. After going through the necessary formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No,2 against the defendant/petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 20- 10-1998 .
' The defendant/petitioner has felt aggrieved a the said judgment and decree and has assailed same through this writ petition.
7. The main grievance of the -learned counsel for the petitioner is that a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court was raised in the written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner but even then the trial Court did not frame an issue on that score, that non- framing of this issue has resulted into miscarriage of justice and he could not adduce evidence to support his contention. He added that if an issue on that score had been framed he would have produced evidence before the Court to support his contention and it might have resulted into dismissal of the suit of plaintiff/respondent No,2 He further contends that framing of issue is the responsibility of the trial Court and as the same has not been discharged so the petition be admitted for regular hearing. In support of his contention he has relied upon Mst.
Hafeezan v. Yasin and two others 1985 CLC 1448 and Aziz-ur-Rehman v. L.D.A. 1985 CLC 2028.
8. A perusal of the facts stated above clearly show that petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 20-8-1998 mainly on the ground that proper issue had not been framed by the trial Court. So far as 1985 CLC 1448 (supra) is concerned in the said authority the main issue revolved around' the ground pertaining to Khula' which had not been framed by the trial Court and as such it was observed in the said authority that trial Court should have framed an issue regarding Khula' though not specifically alleged in the plaint. So far as 1985 CLC 2028 (supra) is concerned it has been held that omission on the part of trial Court to frame issues is as such an irregularity which is not cure able under section 99, C.P.C. When the parties have been prejudiced by omission of the Court to frame said issues. In this case application for amendment of the petition was filed which was not allowed and consequently 'the same was allowed by the appellate Court and case .-,as remanded to the lower Court with direction to allow amendment of plaint and then to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence.
9. In the instant case the matter in issue revolves around the dissolution of marriage of the plaintiff/respondent No,2. The main issue in the instant case was if the plaintiff/ respondent No,2 was entitled to seek divorce me basis of Khula' and a specific issue to that effect had been framed.
So far as the question of jurisdiction of the Court is concerned no such issue was framed, although a preliminary objection to that effect had been taken by the defendant/petitioner in his written statement. The stand of plaintiff/ respondent No,2 had been that she was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajanpur and as such Judge Family Court Rajanpur had the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The plaintiff/respondent No,2 appeared as P.W.1 and similarly brought on record statement of Nazar Hussain P.W.2. Both of them have been shown to be residents of Basti Mohib situated within the Tehsil and District Rajanpur. Since the plaintiff/ respondent No,2 claimed herself to be resident of the said village and no specific question controverting her said stand was put to P.W.2 as well as P.W.1, so the non framing of issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction has not affected the main controversy between the parties. The trial Court has scanned the evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondent No,2 in its true perspective. The judgment impugned vide this writ petition does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect and non framing of issue as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not caused prejudice to the parties. The impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same it hereby dismissed. Es