' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner before the Judge Family Court on 29-10-1997. The petitioner filed written statement, controverted the allegation in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--- ' ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has developed hatred against the defendant and is entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula? O.P.P.
(2) Relief.
' The Judge Family Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 9-3-1999; hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the parties were directed through various orders of this Court to put their pressure on their respective parties to settle the dispute between the parties outside the Court for the purpose to save the life of parties. Learned counsel for the parties stated that they tried their level best but respondent No,1 and petitioner did not agree to settle the dispute outside the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgment of Judge Family Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is the result of misreading and non-reading of record; that Judge Family Court did not advert to the evidence of the petitioner, therefore, impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that Judge Family Court has given findings of fact against the petitioner as efforts for reconciliation were made between the parties at pre-trial and post-trial stage of the proceedings but proved fruitless. That under the direction of this Court learned counsel for the parties tried their level best for reconciliation between the parties but unfortunately on account of the attitude of the parties the same was not materialize the respondent No,1 deposed that---she developed hatred towards the petitioner and she did not want to remain with the petitioner in the relationship of husband and wife, therefore, judgment and decree of Judge Family Court is in accordance with law as the principle laid down by the Superior Courts.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that respondent No,1 has taken categorical stand that she has hatred against petitioner and she did not want to live with the petitioner; in spite of this position to save family, the life of the petitioner and respondent, special the life of minor daughter (Qurat-ul-Ain), the parties were directed to settle the dispute and recon ciliate the matter outside the Court but on account of attitude of the parties, the learned counsel for the parties failed to settle the dispute. It is settled proposition of law that when parties are hatred so much with each other, then it is very difficult to put the parties to remain as husband and wife and to live under the same roof. In such circumstances parties would not able to live happily together and it will be unjust to force the lady to live with such a man. Case being fit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. Petitioner's counsel has failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread and non-read by the Judge Family Court and also failed to point out any violation of any principle laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner.
' For the foregoing discussion, there is no merits in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.